The War on Terror
The War on Terror will be where the Democrats loose if we do not step up. While Americans in polls have continually placed more value on the economy than the War on Terror, this administration has been highly skilled in turning the attention back to the "threats" that face our country. These threats, some exaggerated and pushed by our own fear, also include real and legitimate dangers that we as Americans must face, and more importantly our candidate must face.
Regardless of the nominee, well with the exception of maybe Joe Lieberman, the candidate will be relentlessly attacked on two central themes, "they will raise your taxes" and "they don't want to protect America, they want to go through the UN." The first charge on raising your taxes Democrats can pull a close victory on, but at the current stage none can compete on the "War on Terror" charge. It's not that Democrats aren't capable of coming up with a resounding stance on the issue, it's that at this point none have. In Congress, Democrats have been lax in providing any alternate course of action to the Republican plan, and offer only criticism of the President, criticism that is not backed up by the media. If the media were to suddenly begin reporting on the failures in the "War on Terror" I assure you there are many, then the Democratic candidate would have a leg to stand on with these criticisms, but that's only going to get the party so far. In order to win this issue from Republicans, a new and real strategy needs to develop. After the disaster of the 2002 Midterm Elections, Democrats quickly realized that following Bush in lockstep on every one of his proposals was not going to be successful at all. However, the ineffective Democratic Leadership in the Senate and House (we'll save that for another post) has been impotent at providing any backbone to Bush save a few issues we've deiced merely to `oppose'. The role of the opposition party is not to merely oppose but to provide for the voters a new way, an opposition purpose. If you want proof of why this is important, look at the House around 1994 when Gingrich developed his "Contract for America." The Republicans back then did more than just vote no to every Democratic proposal; they came up with their own proposals and took them to the voters. It didn't matter if they wouldn't win the vote in Congress, voters, who came out in droves for the 1994 midterms, saw them as more than just whiners, but as a party that was making suggestions--however misguided they may have been.
Yet, we seem unwilling to take a page from the Republican Playbook, a page which will be crucial to win in 2004. Newsweek polls show Kerry with a lead over Bush. This is an excellent victory for us early in the game as Bush's numbers dropped post-SOTU but it's not enough. The polls at this time mean nothing; it's the polls that begin in September, and those November Tuesday Night exits that determine our next leader. Kerry's lead over the President can be interpreted as two ways, both demanding the same course of action by the Democratic Party. In the first scenario we can assume that Kerry has landed a major blow to the Bush camp, that dissatisfaction is growing among voters and the Democrats can make a strong charge in November and take back the White House. The other, more probable scenario is that with doubts on the economy, mounting attacks continuing in Iraq, coupled with recent flak the administration has dealt with, this is a temporary setback, and Bush will be swinging around the polls in a month. Either way, the Democrats need to stop dancing around the Terrorism issue, because it will be an election issue. The War on Terror will become the Bush camps biggest weapon because Democrats have proven themselves to the public as weak on Terror. I don't believe that. Many pacifists may be Democrats, but all Democrats are not pacifists. For one, I do not consider myself a pacifist. Neither do most Democrats. The trick then is not to merely say the War on Terror is failing, but to say it's failing and how we could do it better, what is the Democratic plan for protecting the homeland?
Of all the contenders, Kerry has the most cohesive plan for protecting the homeland, but he needs to start talking about that. In his stump speeches about beating Bush, and how he'll do it, he needs to tell voters how he'll protect the Homeland. But, this isn't just about how one candidate can do it, Kerry can only do so much, it also requires that the party stands behind him, or any other nominee.
The Democratic Party needs to unify behind one message, which has always been our problem. I submit that it need not be difficult, that Democrats as far out as Dennis Kucinich does not represent the mainstream of not only America, but also our party. Democrats need to pledge to continue the hunt for terrorists abroad in the world. This isn't an issue of being a Republican or a Democrat; this is an issue of being an American. The duty of the President is to act in the "best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This also includes providing for the common defense. Ensuring that Terrorists never again attack our country is crucial for any President.
Where the Democrats can make difference though lies more in the homeland than it does abroad, but first we'll tackle what can be done abroad. For one, the obvious choice is to lobby to include the UN more and remove a bit more of the weight off our soldiers. It's painfully obvious that we will be in Iraq much longer than anticipated, but nothing can immediately change that. Americans, however, are not going to sit by and watch their friends and neighbors die every day for much longer. They want to know where the rest of this `Coalition of the Willing' is hiding. The Democratic Party needs to promise to go back to the UN, which may be easier as the WMD claims are being more challenged in the American media, and reconcile with other countries. We need to stop locking other countries out of the bidding process for reconstruction. Democrats need to go to the people and tell them, "Do you want this to be about money, about a dispute, or do you want this to be about restoring peace to a troubled nation and bringing our boys home?" Democrats need to be telling voters, "if you vote for me, I promise to make America safer, and the only way America can be safer is with friends in the world." The line of the party on this issue mustn't be Bush Lied, save that for debate questions and the pundits, the party needs to be out on the forefront telling voters how we'll bring our troops home, how we'll loosen the load, how we're going to pay for it. Before Bush asked for the $87 Billion dollar request polls showed most Americans were willing to pay more taxes to go to the troops, and so I advocate a Democrat that will increase military spending. Unlike Bush who simply asked for $87 Billion with no promise to go to the international community, Democrats will be blunt with the voters, "Iraq is a mess, but if we leave now then we will truly be in danger, in order to ensure that terrorism never takes hold, we must all sacrifice." Again, this isn't a stance that only Republicans can take (in fact they haven't), but a stance that Democrats MUST take, because Republicans have not even mentioned how we will pay for the war. Once we outline our commitment to the very American idea of protecting our country, to committing to bring our troops home, to committing to mending our ties with the international community, we must move on to the homeland.
Democrats need to rally behind court decisions that state the PATRIOT Act goes too far, Democrats should tell voters that they are drafting a new version of the bill, that will give law enforcement the necessary tools, but ensure rights for CITIZENS. Let me make this clear, to me, if we suspend habeas corpus for a terrorist it doesn't bother me that much. Yet, when we have the power to do that to our own citizens and drag them before Military tribunals I become nerve-wracked, as I'm sure many of you do. So Democrats need to make this amendment, Democrats need to stand for the Constitution, that means protection of rights and our country.
Our states are still in trouble, they are facing grave deficits mainly because of the new initiatives after 9/11. The Democratic Party should be telling voters that we need to provide immediate federal aid for the states. We need to be going in there and telling voters that we "understand that you are in need of help, that you are making many sacrifices that were never asked of you up until our country changed on 9/11. But, our entire country changed, not just New York, not just Virginia, the entire nation as a whole, and as a nation we will stand together and support each other to protect not merely our states, but our nation."
Since 9/11 the ports of New York City and Elizabeth, New Jersey are still insecure. While these two states may be Democratic strongholds, battleground states will undoubtedly respond well to Democrats that tell battleground voters that this administration has left these ports open, again inveighing to the voters that this isn't a state or regional issue, but an issue that affects us all.
If the Democratic Party can unite behind these two separate initiatives, one abroad and one at home, we can surely wrench this issue from the Republicans. We can show voters a better way, a safer way, a lasting way to protect America from terrorism. The Democratic Party can begin to serve as the opposition party of purpose. We can go to the voters, tell them what needs to be changed and how we will change it. The Democratic Party will be the party of protecting America, the party of securing Iraq, the party of brining our troops home, the party of the commitment to keep America safe. The Democratic Party, unified by these two simple concepts, will tell Americans that we are here for the people of the country, whether that be providing healthcare, helping small business, helping our citizens, or most of all protecting those who we love from danger, we are The Party of America.