RUFF N READY :

IMPATIENCE IS NOT A FOREIGN POLICY (Patrick Ruffini, 06.07.02)

It's just not in the Democrats' nature to feign a profoundly alien neocon foreign policy critique when what they'd really rather be talking about domestic policy. The only one who would is Joe Lieberman, and does anyone seriously think he'll be nominated, especially when Gore has shown he can skate through just fine pretending September 11 never happened? The protestations of Matt's misguided friend notwithstanding, most of the serious foreign policy ideas of the last decade have been thought out by conservatives working in the Bush Administration or near it. During the campaign, all Gore had a shadowy, reclusive foreign policy adviser named Leon Feurth. At least Gore has that. John Kerry and John Edwards have even less. Furthermore, Democratic primary voters don't vote on foreign policy, so this speculation all becomes highly academic once you step out of the bipartisan neocon-warblogger-Likudnik world we inhabit. By far the more likely scenario is that the Dems will just muddle through their foreign policy, hoping the war ends soon, rather than launching some grandiose right-wing attack on President Bush.

Despite a few wobbly moments this week--he's actually threatening to root against the U.S. in that Korean Kickball Tourney if we face the Italians--Patrick Ruffini redeems himself with an excellent post that puts paid to the delusion that a Democrat could run to President Bush's right on the war.

Here's all I'd add :
This last bit is particularly important as a domestic political consideration--and don't we all in the darkest secret parts of our hearts enjoy the domestic politics more than even the geopolitics?

Without being overly cynical, you have to wonder if last night's speech isn't in good part aimed at the midterm election. Debate and legislation of this new Department will suck all the air out of every domestic initiative and keep Congress tied up on what is fundamentally a Republican issue.

Democrats, as you say, don't have their heart in this but have to weigh in on it and be seen to be cooperating. Meanwhile, all the stuff they want to talk about--Social Security, Medicare, pensions, etc.--gets shunted to the side or else they look like they're blocking this "important national security issue". You can just see Trent Lott : Gee Mr. Daschle, we'd love to talk about parts per billion of chromiocyclamate being released into the air, but we were actually in the middle of "the most important government restructuring since the American Revolution"...

Even if that's not the intent, that's one of the effects, isn't it?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 7, 2002 10:13 PM