Progressive Reactionaries

I agree with Matt Yglesias that National Security is the true weak spot of the Democratic Party, and the true reason why Bush won was Kerry's vagueness on the subject. "Moral values" voters may have demonstrated some of their true strength in '04, but that wasn't the tipping issue. I further agree that making the military just one of their special interests won't do the job either (Hat tip: The Corner). But Yglesias can't seem to bring himself to say what should be done: That the Democrats are going to have to out-hawk the Republicans.

Impossible, you say? Not at all. Forty years ago, the Democrats did exactly that. In 1960 and in 1964, the combination of liberal social policies and ferocious anti-communism (Kennedy's "pay any price" dictum) were all but unstoppable at the polls. A similar combination (lefty politics and ferocious anti-fascism) worked for FDR in the 40's. "Have pity on the weak, and slay the dragons," is a potent message indeed.

But to get it back, the Democrats are going to have to cut themselves off from the entire 1968 faction, all the professors and pundits who believe as surely as they believe the sky is blue that the U.S. is an imperialist power bent on world domination. I personally think Yglesias underestimates the degree to which this thinking has become reflexive in Democratic circles, even unconscious. As a matter of principle, most liberals don't think the U.S. is evil necessarily. But with every specific example of American force being used to defeat dictatorship, they seem to find themselves opposed.

It's going to take a lot for the average Democratic voter to cozy up to the institutions of power in American foreign policy: the military ("if we could take that money and spend it on food/education/free needles..."), the State Department (still primarily staffed by Ivy League upper-class types, though less so than before), and the CIA (the whipping-boy for every foreign policy miscue, when not accused of being the Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death for the entire Third World). Second-generation hippies are to be found everywhere, and if their politics are a bit of a pose, that doesn't make them any more willing to support the slaying dragons. Out of habit, they still oppose the knights.

So I agree with the nature of the problem, and I don't blame Yglesias for not speaking to specifically about the solution. He's going to have a hard time convincing the DU crowd that it's not "reactionary."