August 24, 2005
DECLARE VICTORY AND AGREE WITH W (via Kevin Whited):
It's all about-face for the Democrats (Kevin Drum, August 24, 2005, LA Times)
For their part, members of the antiwar left have an easy role: They should continue to push establishment Democrats to support withdrawal from Iraq, but they should also make it clear that no one will be punished for doing so, regardless of their past support for the war. However angry they are, doves can best serve their cause by not demanding tortured explanations and tearful apologies. A change in position should be enough.The hawks have a much harder job. They're the ones who need to publicly change their position, an act that carries the risk of being tarred forever with the dreaded label that killed Kerry's presidential campaign: "flip-flopper." Besides, mainstream Democratic politicians and their advisors genuinely think immediate withdrawal is a bad idea that likely would plunge Iraq into a savage civil war.
And then there's this: Democrats with long memories know perfectly well that similar demands for withdrawal during the Vietnam War wrecked the party's reputation on national security issues for a generation. The American public tended to associate Democratic doubts with the nation's first-ever military defeat, and regardless of whether that conclusion was fair or not, no one is eager to repeat it.
What's a mainstream Democrat to do? Have the courage to break ranks and advocate the course that's probably the most sensible anyway: a gradual, phased withdrawal based on specified interim goals and a hard end-date two years from now. After all, in December 2007 we will have been in Iraq for nearly five years, and the plain reality is that by then we'll either leave because we've won or we'll leave because it's clear that we can't. So why not say so?
There are many reasons such a public stance makes sense.
As Brother Whited points out, the main reason this makes sense is because it would bring Democrats back on board with the strategy the President has followed from the beginning and make them seem like patriotic hawks again. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 24, 2005 11:28 AM
Well, if Kevin Drum is willing to denounce Kos, then have at it. Otherwise, this article is just another marker in a looming death struggle.
The hard left isn't going to go away - they think it's their party now. The middle left is scared and tired. And there really is no Democratic right.
If Howard Dean decides to run again in late 2007, the battle will be intense. There isn't going to be the glazed-over mush at the Democratic primary debates that we saw in early 2004.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 24, 2005 12:13 PMIn an effort to understand Kevin Drum's advice to the Democratic Party I think it would be best to view this comedy clip of Bob Hope from a 1940's movie called "Ghost Breakers"
Posted by: h-man at August 24, 2005 1:03 PMInteresting but purely hypothetical. The Democratic party of fifty years ago may have adopted such a stance. The Democratic party of today will not.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 24, 2005 1:11 PM"make them seem like patriotic hawks again."
Can you provide any evidence that any Democrat wants to be seen as a "patriotic hawk" these days?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 24, 2005 1:16 PMIt would make sense, but if it does not come with the humiliation of President Bush attached the left won't take it. Sorry, but the BDS has pushed too many too far and sensible fallback will not be allowed for the moderate Democrats - their far left wing would see it as treason and they are driving the show right now.
Posted by: Mikey at August 24, 2005 2:38 PMRaoul:
This Kevin Drum guy says they should adopt Don Rumsfeld and George Bush's strategy and we always hear those two called hawks.
Posted by: oj at August 24, 2005 3:01 PMA "hard end date" ... as opposed to a "target end date" ... sucks strategically. The end needs to be conditional on milestones being met. Period.
Otherwise, Kevin makes sense. Ergo: Kos can't buy it.
Posted by: ghostcat at August 24, 2005 4:54 PM