The Choice

I'm with Ilan Goldenberg on the political problems caused by unduly timid Iraq plans:

Barry Posen recently noted, the Center for New American Security proposal for Iraq offers no strategic choice to the American public. Democratic candidates that flirt with the vague ideas proposed by Kahl are risking making the same mistakes made in 2002 and 2004 on national security – offering hair splitting difference on policy but no real strategic choice or contrast to Republicans. With the American public’s opposition to the Iraq war at an all-time high, the idea of offering a narrow plan not dissimilar to the policy already being pursued by the Bush administration – one which Kahl admits does not have a high probability of success – is politically tone deaf.

With Bush not personally on the ballot, a debate over who would be the best person to manage a fundamentally similar strategy doesn't necessarily shake out in the Democrats' favor. Indeed, I think Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or John McCain could all mount very successful arguments on that score. A debate about strategy, however, is likely to favor the party arguing for a bigger change from the failed policies of the past.

Comments

A debate about strategy, however, is likely to favor the party arguing for a bigger change from the failed policies of the past.

First, you have to keep the public with you on the "failed policies" part. And that may be increasingly difficult, given the positive tone of the current news.

Second, I think nearly everyone in politics is missing the huge economic elephant that walked into the room this summer. If the housing crisis, credit crisis, dampened consumer confidence, falling dollar, and inflation do manifest themselves as a significant economic downturn--as they show every sign of doing--you won't find too many voters who pull the lever on matters of grand strategy.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 11:17 AM

There is obviously some uncertainty both about what voters will most care about next fall and what the optimal Iraq policy will be in 2009. To some extent, the candidates can't do much more than say what they would do if they were president right now. With respect to the possibility of recession, if it happens it will be the biggest issue in the campaign. But what would the candidates say about it? Run a bigger deficit?

Posted by henry evans | November 12, 2007 11:30 AM

With respect to the possibility of recession, if it happens it will be the biggest issue in the campaign. But what would the candidates say about it? Run a bigger deficit?

Worked for FDR . . .

But there are plenty of more or less dubious policy choices out there. We could go back to the, er, gold standard, for instance.

There's even a potential linkage between withdrawing troops and freeing up funds for domestic programs, if anyone wants to go there.

My point, I guess, was that both of these very significant issue areas appear to be in substantial flux right now. By the convention, neither Iraq nor the economy is likely to adhere to straight line projection of the present.

So it would probably be best for the frontrunning candidates to keep their powder dry until a clearer storyline is established. Edwards, on the other hand, has some pretty strong ideas on economic issues, if I remember correctly. Is that right, Petey?

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 11:52 AM

southpaw, get your history right: fdr didn't run on a "bigger deficit" in 1932 or anything close.

as for the "positive news," insofar as american casualties are down and ethnic cleansing is advanced can be characterized as "positive news," yes, but matthew's point is they can't since there is still no underlying strategy.

the question is why democrats find it so hard to step up on that matter, and while i know matthew would like us to buy his book when he answers that, i'd just as soon know his opinion now.

Posted by howard | November 12, 2007 11:56 AM

southpaw, get your history right: fdr didn't run on a "bigger deficit" in 1932 or anything close.

Well, I wan't saying he ran on the idea of deficits, but rather that well-chosen deficit spending was a useful policy initiative for him.

But, as to the substance of your criticism . . . maybe, maybe not:

I have favored the use of certain types of public works as a further emergency means of stimulating employment and the issuance of bonds to pay for such public works, but I have pointed out that no economic end is served if we merely build without building for a necessary purpose. Such works, of course, should insofar as possible be self-sustaining if they are to be financed by the issuing of bonds.

No, obviously, this isn't "I say we run huge debts!" but it might fall into "anything close" territory.

Also of interest from that speech:

Picture to yourself, for instance, the great groups of property owned by millions of our citizens, represented by credits issued in the form of bonds and mortgages--Government bonds of all kinds, Federal, State, county, municipal; bonds of industrial companies, of utility companies; mortgages on real estate in farms and cities, and finally the vast investments of the Nation in the railroads. What is the measure of the security of each of those groups? We know well that in our complicated, interrelated credit structure if any one of these credit groups collapses they may all collapse. Danger to one is danger to all.

How, I ask, has the present Administration in Washington treated the interrelationship of these credit groups? The answer is clear: It has not recognized that interrelationship existed at all. Why, the Nation asks, has Washington failed to understand that all of these groups, each and every one, the top of the pyramid and the bottom of the pyramid, must be considered together, that each and every one of them is dependent on every other; each and every one of them affecting the whole financial fabric?

Statesmanship and vision, my friends, require relief to all at the same time.

The more things change . . .

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 2:33 PM

bah, humbug!

Sorry about the formatting there.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 2:39 PM

Unduly timid? Right, Matt, Democrats should just come right out and say that after going on two decades of fighting in the Persian Gulf we are going to evacuate, stop using oil, ignore Iran, withdraw from the UN, and focus on providing free housing to everyone in Mexico who can make it across the border. Excellent strategy.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 12, 2007 5:25 PM

Yes, the odd thing about Roosevelt was that he consistently campaigned on reducing the deficit.

Was money spent? Indeed it was, on stuff like the TVA, the Grand Coulee, the Hoover Dam, post offices, parks, trails, and so forth.

The simple fact was that "free enterprise" had spectacularly failed and the government needed to pick up the pieces. In my county gypo loggers clearcut 40,000 acres and walked away from their land and tax bills. The county ended up owning the land, which eventually became a state forest that has paid its own way, and then some, since the mid-60s.

So, yes, the government went into debt to build the Grand Coulee- and the people have been benefiting ever since. We should be so lucky as to have a candidate today suggesting that the government should invest heavily in housing that doesn't use any energy for heating or cooling.

Or, we could let the Republicans steal another election and create the conditions that make radical change possible.

Posted by serial catowner | November 12, 2007 7:13 PM

Matt's point (leaving aside the pointless FDR history lesson) is that the reason the Dems lost in 2004 (aside from vote rigging and vote fraud in Ohio) was the fact that Kerry was indistinguishable from Bush on Iraq.

Today, Clinton is indistinguishable from Bush on Iraq. Maybe a fewer number of troops, but the bases stay, and the troops that are there do the same things the troops are doing there now. And this stays until probably 2013 at the earliest.

Not to mention that all of the Dem front-runners are indistinguishable from Bush on Iran. They claim to want to talk, Bush claims he wants to talk. Meanwhile, the war preparation goes on.

And if the Dems aren't distinguishable from the Republicans, why not vote for a Republican? Or vice versa? You want to leave the election up to a "toss a coin" electorate?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 12, 2007 8:37 PM

Kerry was incoherent on Iraq, not indistinguishable from Bush. That's far worse.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Democrats over Republicans. Most voters are not going to think that a self-administered defeat in Iraq is going to be one of them, though.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 13, 2007 11:53 AM