Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The Republican Plan for Election 2006
Here's your big October surprise for this season: there won't be any October surprise.  Oh, patrols in Afghanistan might rope in another dozen or so Al Qaeda #2's.  They might even unearth the bones of Osama.  The "government of Iraq" might launch a program to get all their fingers dyed purple.  None of that should come as a surprise at all, because Republicans have already announced their plan for November.

It comes down to just two words: fascists and appeasers.

By using the word fascists, the Republicans mean to raise the stakes.  Newt Gingrich talked about recasting the War on Terror as "World War III" and complained when he couldn't catch the ear of the administration, but the deafness they displayed wasn't a sign of disagreement with Newt, it was just signal that they had already incorporated his message -- and then some.  They've elevated the War on Terror above all previous wars.  It's a "clash of civilizations," the ultimate showdown between the forces of light and darkness.  Apocalypse Plus.   Fascist is simply the worst, most emotionally resonate word they could think of and not have to pay their own FCC censors every time they talk.  

The Republicans are absolutely committed to emphasizing the threat presented by "Islamo-fascists," painting them as a hovering terror that threatens to swoop down on children at night.  A boogeyman for all occasions combining the worst aspects of Hitler, Attila the Hun, and tooth decay.

In doing so, they hope to sweep the losses of Iraq under the rug.  In effect, they want to trivialize that conflict as just the opening to the great battle to come.  Three thousand dead Americans?  Bah, that's nothing against the ultimate fate of life, the universe, and everything!   When Democrats argue that Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror, Republicans are nodding along.  Yep, it's just a little blip on the screen, forget about Iraq and look at this huge war!  In fact, don't even bother to look at Iraq, just study these scary pictures of people chanting "Death to America."

Fascists is the perfect word for them because people understand that it's horrible, but they haven't the least clue what it means.  Rove and co. love the fact that it's been tossed around with such abandon over the last few years -- remember "blogo-fascist?" -- because that's served to not only scrub away any exact definition and make the word part of the acceptable political vocabulary.  They can call every Muslim from Mecca to Manhattan an Islamo-fascist, and anyone trying to correct them only looks like a pedant.

Elevating the war allows the Republicans to follow up with that second word, "appeaser."  After all, if you are fighting a "police action" against a clearly picayune opponent, then arguing over the strategy seems acceptable.  But "weaken" the government by disagreeing on tactics in the middle of the greatest struggle that mankind has ever faced... hey, is it too late to resurrect traitor and terrorist?  

The Democratic Strategy for 2006
On the left hand side of the aisle, Democrats also have a two part strategy.  The first part is as simple as the Republican strategy and can also be summed up in a word: Iraq.  As much as the Republicans want people to ignore Iraq and concentrate on the broader "war," that's how much the Democrats want the public to stare at exactly what's going on in Baghdad and how much it's unlike all the Republican promises.  Here's something that's rarely said of Democratic campaigns: that's good strategy.  The Republicans have handled the war that it seems they put General Custer in charge of strategy and made Wrong Way Corrigan head of logistics.  

Quite simply, Iraq alone is the largest single blunder this nation has made - ever.  Making sure that all Republicans share the blame as enablers of this ugliness is not only smart, but just.  And to the extent that this strategy forces Democrats to give up illusions that they can provide half-hearted support Republican adventurism as a means of looking "tough," it has good implications for the future.

The second part of the Democratic strategy is to attack the Republican prosecution of the War on Terror.  This includes more pointing at Iraq (good idea), but also includes a sizable amount of complaining over the details.  Democrats would be more judicious in how they use the money.  They point out that there are probably more terrorist targets in Manhattan than there are in southern Indiana petting zoos.  They demonstrate that our ports are still wide open, and that Homeland Security is a bumbling mixture of opposing ideas and wasteful spending.

There's only one thing wrong with part two of this strategy: it's both bad politics and just plain stupid.  What's wrong with the War on Terror is not the details of how it's being fought, it's that there should not be a war on terror.  

As Ian Lustick points out in his new book Trapped in the War on Terror, the whole idea is not only doomed to failure, it's doomed to disastrous failure.  Lustick shows that the  notion of a war on terror is fundamentally wrong.  It doesn't solve the problem, it feeds the problem.  

The first principle of terrorism is to understand that the weak win by exploiting the strength of the powerful. When 9/11 terrorists with box cutters hijacked American airliners, they transformed America's preeminent transportation system into a devastating weapon of attack. They also set a trap with the promise of revenge and security as the bait. The hijackers' biggest victory was to goad our government into taking the bait by unleashing the War on Terror. The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are, according to Ian S. Lustick, destroying American confidence, undermining our economy, warping our political life, and isolating us from our international allies.

Rather than arguing over how the war on terror should be fought, rather than trying to raise the metaphorical heat, Democrats have to step back and provide America with a real alternative: the war on terror is a farce.  They can't give into the temptation to tell Republicans how to fight the war, because that only serves to validate the Republican's ideas -- that these enemies are "fascists" deserving of an unprecedented effort, and that this effort can only come in the form of a military struggle.

Lustick shows how disconnected the War on Terror is from the real but remote threat terrorism poses. He explains how the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own. A whirlwind of fear, failure, and recrimination, this "war" drags every interest group and politician, he argues, into selfish competition for its spoils.

The War on Terror is a wholly-owned creation of the right.  It's their territory, and every time you talk about it - even if it's to suggest how you would "do it better" - only serves to help the Republicans keep the world on broil.   Democrats can't win by fine-tuning Republican ideas, and if we try the public will rightly find us guilty of having weak spines and weaker heads.
Everything that's now being said about the "war on terror" is nothing but an echo of the fear Americans felt at the onset of the Cold War.  They were faced with the same sorts of possibilities -- sleeper cells and anarchists -- and wrestled with the same kind of approaches to solving those issues.

Facing the threat of nuclear incineration during the Cold War, America overcame panic about nonexistent communist sleeper cells poised to destroy the country, a panic fueled by the destructive hysteria of McCarthyism. Through careful analysis of the Soviet threat, the nation managed to sustain a productive national life and achieve victory, despite the terrifying daily possibility of catastrophe.

America decided the best way out of the Cold War was not by directly attacking its opponents or by rescinding the rights of citizens, but by being America.  We threw off that hysteria the Republicans are now rushing to increase.  We won by holding to our principles, not by surrendering them.

Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are perfectly apt, because both were misguided efforts to attack philosophies by waging war against countries.  That didn't work then, won't work now (and for God's sake, when Republicans start the war drums for the next round, it won't work then, either).  

Winning the Terror War
People often try to make Rove out as some kind of magician, but in this case, all his cards are on the table and have been for months.  Republicans are going to pound the podium 24/7 from now till election day while screaming about the coming apocalypse.  They're going to embrace the War on Terror and hug it like a bloody teddy bear.  If there's a thermostat on the American temperature, they want to set it for 1000 degrees.

If Democrats are content to play this game on the Republican court, there's every chance that come the second week of November, we'll be moaning about how the Neocons staged a "miracle comeback" and got us again.  There is only one strategy that will completely blow the Republicans out of the pool.  We have to do the one thing that Republicans never, never think to do themselves: show real bravery.

Point out that in their actions, the Republicans are doing exactly what Osama and his pals want them to do.   They've managed to take a tiny splinter group of extremists -- a group that never had more than  few thousand adherents and which was roundly detested within the Muslim world -- and turned these nutcases into folk heroes.  We've held a five year fund-raising and recruiting drive for Al Qaeda while pouring out American blood and America dollars like both are in endless supply.

There is no external threat to American freedom, no threat but the one we create ourselves.  Abraham Lincoln put it so aptly in 1838:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Just because Bush and the Republicans have decided to go skipping along the yellow brick road to Armageddon doesn't mean the country has to play Toto to their Dorothy.  It is not too late for cooler heads to prevail.

Democrats must offer the American people a real alternative, a refreshing breeze of sanity.  A cool, steady hand at the tiller, able to understand threats and address them without elevating every mouse to the status of tiger.  

Democrats can not be too timid to point out that the Republicans are rushing us into a disaster of our own making.