Batfink's Beep -- 11-22-05

Archive: What if the Democrats actually were patriotic Americans?

November 22, 2005

As we all know, America is at war. And as we know, the Democrat strategy vis-a-vis the war has been to make George Bush pay politically, without regard for what it does to our troops, and our likelihood of success as a nation in that war. Now, you might think that, as the opposition party, that is their job: to disagree, to complain, to throw sand in the wheels. And that's fine, as long as the only thing that matters is party. But what if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second? Or, put another way, what would we like to think we'd have done had the attack come with a Democrat in office, assuming such a man showed the gumption to fight it as vigorously as it ought to be fought?

Let's try a thought experiment: What if, as intelligent people, the Dems realized that we were attacked by an enemy that wanted us dead, that would not stop until it were utterly defeated, and that as loyal Americans, they wanted us to win the war against that enemy? Oh, I know: "Dissenters are patriots, too", "Democrats also want us to win the war", and all that nonsense. But we also know that, by constantly tallying casualties, refusing to admit any progress, screaming for the USA to tuck tail and run, making up ever-more elaborate and convoluted stories to support the BUSH LIED!!!! fantasy, and so on, the Democrats are undeniably giving aid and comfort to our enemies, demoralizing our troops, and generally dragging the whole business out. It's costing us more time, more money, and more blood; extra measures of all 3 that needn't have been lost.

Let me state the question this way: What would we, as actual patriotic Americans, want them to have done instead for the last 4 years, and how would it have looked and played if they had, both in terms of the war effort itself, as well as in political terms?

Yes, this is a fantasy scenario, but let's suppose the Democrats agreed, from the beginning, and as a party, that the war must be won, and that partisanship would be put aside for the sake of the nation. Suppose that they wholeheartedly supported the war effort as well as the Commander-in-Chief who was prosecuting it, as a matter of policy. Let's say that some great solon of the Democrats strode forward in September 2001, and gave a Democratic "We're wholeheartedly behind the president, without reservation at this critical time" speech after Bush's bullhorn-at-ground-zero moment, and that the party stuck faithfully to it all the way. Yes, I know I'm dreaming. But what if they did? As a matter of pure political calculation, did the Democrats really have to be against the war? or was it possible for them to ride along, doing what was best for the nation, and also co-opting a fair share of the credit for success, as full partners in its prosecution?

OK, let's get to nuts and bolts, here: As a political matter, it would mean not contesting Bush's re-election (now I'm really dreaming...) Yes, that would be unprecedented. But considering that they lost anyway, and are proving themselves more and more unworthy every day of ever being trusted with the security of the nation, would it have been a poorer move politically than what they are doing? Don't answer before you consider the fact that it would, beyond any doubt, have put to bed forever the notion that the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. On that basis alone, I posit that it would have been the single most brilliant electoral strategic gambit ever seen on the American stage, as well as, indeed because, it would so clearly be putting the nation above apparent partisan interest. Since a truly united America would make much shorter work of the war, both because of the gusto of the prosecution as well as the utter demoralization such a scenario would cause our enemies, it is almost a given that by the 2008 election season, we would be in the end stages of mopping up. Yes, Bush would be the president that did it. But considering how little good it did Bush père to have won a war, once it was irretrieveably won, and considering the absolute credibility the Dems would have accrued by standing firm, against political interest, for the defense of the nation, they would have at least as much political capital in '08 as Bush himself. Maybe more. And after all, Bush can't run in '08, anyway, and everyone knew that in advance. Whoever gave that speech I supposed earlier would be a shoo-in for nomination. The public would almost OWE the presidency to him and his party, that had behaved so nobly in wartime, CHOOSING to remain the out-party for the good of the nation. And all this says nothing about the fact that there would have been no compelling national security reason to vote Republican in the off-year elections, either. Suffice to say that there would probably be a much closer Congress, too. Maybe the GOP wouldn't even be in control of both houses right now.

Usually, the best political strategy is just doing the right thing. By fully supporting the war effort, the Democrats had a chance to get the nation quickly through to victory, at great savings in terms of blood and treasure, bringing great credit on themselves, and also, by the way, get the electoral decks cleared for '08, while simultaneously neutralizing for at least 100 years the now-carved in stone notion that they are soft on defense.

What a move of genius it would have been.

top

Visitors since Dec 1, 2005:

Revised: 05/19/08 08:06:55 -0400 .