New South

Just like I been sayin:

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2456

Running from the Middle

So, I've been going over many of the arguments that followed Peter Beinart's much-discussed TNR article on the desperate need for Democrats to seize upon national security and the fight against Islamic fascism (IF) if they ever want to win another election. There are tons of places to find good responses, and, as a lazy person, I'm not going to link to them. I will, however, let you in on what I've been thinking about them, and because of them.

I disagreed with Beinart in earlier pieces about the threat of IF. There is no comparison between the Soviet threat in the 1950s and the IF threat today, for many, many reasons. IF is a minor threat among many that face America and the world, and it should be treated as such, not blown out of proportion to win elections. I do understand the source of Beinart's frustration, however, and it's one that I share. It is vital for America to be powerful and to use that power to further the causes of democracy and free markets, and it is immensely distressing to me that many liberals have such a knee-jerk aversion to the use of American force abroad. It's also why I took such pains to tell everyone who cared to ask that I was for the removal of Saddam, I just didn't trust Bush to do it well (and boy was I right).

I think the smartest part of Beinart's critique is something that he only hints at in the piece, and that is that a new majority of the middle is just waiting to be formed, if only one party or another could begin to ignore one of its key constituencies: the left, its pacifist, socialist left wing, and the right, its religious right wing. It's very easy for me to imagine a coalition of the middle, strong and enduring, that embodied many reasonable ideals: strong or hawkish foreign policy with engaged internationalism, fiscal responsibility, social tolerance, able to balance business and environmental interests, strong on education and communities, for social safety nets but always with an emphasis on work and training. It seems to me that there are a large number of Republicans who are dismayed by social conservatives on the right, and concerned about Bush's fiscal habits, but who are scared stiff of a Democratic C-in-C. Likewise, there are many Democrats, myself among them, who are annoyed by the foreign policy weakness on the left and by calls for uneconomic economic programs, but who are terrified of the religious right and rampant social conservatism.

Of course, many politicians have been successful at claiming portions of the middle, notably Reagan and Clinton, but neither of those men was able to build a lasting coalition of the middle (a sign that their strength was based on personal popularity and not issues: another problem with the American electorate). The electorate does seem polarized now, but I think that is largely due to the influence of the outer wings of the parties, and maybe to geography. The risks involved in forming a coalition of the middle are great; one would have to deliberately alienate part of one's traditional base in a move that, if it should fail, would end one's political career. And not only that, one would have to trust that other prominent individuals (and they must be prominent) would take the same great risk. So, really, the only people who might be up for such a thing would be nationally known and respected pols on both sides of the aisle with middle-of-the-road leanings, a penchant for compromise, and a good chance that they had seen the apex of their careers.

Ok, ok, that practically reeks of McCain. I personally can't stand the guy for selling out the middle in allegiance to Bush, but he'd be a perfect cornerstone for the effort. John Edwards? He's tarnished himself on the right by waging class, anti-trade warfare, but he used to be king of the responsible center-left, is nationally known and liked, and has nowhere to go politically. All the old-guard Northeast Republicans, fiscally sound with a social conscience and a distrust of religious fundamentalism (Chafee, Snowe, and Collins), along with Jeffords and Lieberman. Throw in the Bush I policy realists like Brent Scowcroft and the king of unrealized potential, Wes Clark. There are plenty of others. Christie Whitman, some southern Democratic governors, hell, maybe even Rudy Giuliani. What we need is for a large number of these people to meet in one room and decide to change the world and unify the electorate (ok, it wouldn't unify the fringes, but you can't please everyone and so on). Then, they need to hire a brilliant marketing firm and have a product launch: the new party, with a catchy name, and with an emphasis on things people can agree on: the US needs to be strong and safe, the US needs to have responsible economic policies, the US needs help its citizens when they face difficulties, the US should not be in the business of running people's personal lives. And so on.

Naturally there will be lots of tough issues that split the party. Immigration might be one, or tax policy (how progressive should the system be?), or any of a host of things, but I see it like a least squares regression. The parties seem to have come to a point where the lines running through them no longer minimize the sums of squared differences (least charismatic metaphor ever). What does that mean? Time for a realignment.

Check out this excellent piece from Franklin Foer, mainly about the state of neocon thinking on the situation in Iran but also an excellent primer on the difficulties the United States faces there. The money quote, from AEI's Tom Donnelly:

The horse is ninety percent out of the barn. They're going to get the bomb unless we invade. That's not an option. So, I'd say, the time to stop this from happening has pretty much passed. Now, the question is, what are you going to do about it?

There are several points worth making on the Iranian situation. First, wouldn't it have been nice if we'd paid some attention to this crisis in the making? Second, trouble in Iran is collateral damage in the continuing Iraq insurgency (and in continuing Afghanistan instability). How much stronger would our position be if we'd taken Iraq with appropriate strength and quickly pacified the country. With decisive victories in Iraq and Afghanistan we have Iran surrounded, both by democracies and by victorious troops. Instead, Iran has the option of assisting the insurgents, nickel and diming our troops to death, and diminishing everyday the will of Americans to take on another military venture should one prove desirable but not absolutely necessary.

What do we do? Having put ourselves in this situation, I think the best solution is diplomatic. Not only is invading off the table, but from the sound of things a tactical strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would also have more costs than benefits. It seems to me we should work with Europe, and perhaps try to win assistance from Russia or China, to stall Iran's nuclear development as long as possible, and shine an international light on opposition crackdowns. In the meantime, we need to throw everything we have into establishing safe, prosperous, and secure nations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The longer a power vacuum persists in those regions, and the stronger Iran is allowed to become, the more we invite Iran to directly assert its influence, a move that could have catastrophic effects.