"The Strategic Class" (A Must Read for Why Kerry & Dean had problems)

[KoKo]

Everyone here on DU should read this article. It answers so many questions about why Kerry/Edwards couldn't talk about Iraq and why Dean was drowned out, why Hillary and Biden tow the line and why we aren't going to win elections again until we get some new blood in our party and support the "dissident Think Tank's" that are emerging from disatisfaction with the traditional. Clean up our voting machines but also make sure our candidates answer to us and not the "Strategic Class."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Strategic Class

Ari Berman

Central to the liberal hawks' mission is a challenge to other Democrats that they too must become "national security Democrats," to borrow a phrase coined by Holbrooke. To talk about national security a Democrat must be a national security Democrat, and to be a national security Democrat, a Democrat must enthusiastically support a militarized "war on terror," protracted occupation in Iraq, "muscular" democratization and ever-larger defense budgets. The liberal hawks caricature other Democrats just as Republicans long stereotyped them. The pundits magnify the perception that Democrats are soft on national security, and they influence how consultants view public opinion and develop the message for candidates. In that sense, the bottom of the pyramid is always interacting with the top. It matters little that people like Beinart have no national security experience--as long as the hawks identify themselves as national security Democrats, they're free to play the game.


Today, despite the growing evidence that the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq have been a colossal--some would say criminal--failure, what's striking is how much of the pyramid remains essentially in place. As the Iraqi insurgency turned increasingly violent, and the much-hyped WMDs never turned up, the hawks attempted a bit of self-evaluation. Slate and The New Republic both hosted windy pseudo-mea culpa forums. Of the eight liberal hawks invited by Slate, journalist Fred Kaplan remarked, "I seem to be the only one in the club who's changed his mind." TNR's confession was even more limited, with Beinart admitting that he overcame his distrust of Bush so that he could "feel superior to the Democrats." Pollack took part in both forums, and then earned five figures for an Atlantic Monthly essay on "what went wrong." Even at their darkest hour, the strategic class found a way to profit from its errors, coalescing around a view that its members had been misled by the Bush Administration and that too little planning, too few troops and too much ideology were largely to blame for the chaos in Iraq. The hawks decided it was acceptable to criticize the execution of the war, but not the war itself--a view Kerry found particularly attractive. A "yes, but" or "no, but" mentality defined this thinking. Having subsequently pinned the blame for Kerry's defeat largely on the political consultants or the candidate himself, the strategic class has moved forward largely unscarred.

Biden and Clinton still have more influence than antiwar politicians like Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold. No one has replaced Holbrooke or Albright. Pollack continues to thrive at Brookings and, despite never visiting the country, has a new book out about Iran. Shortly after the election, Beinart penned a 5,683-word essay calling on hawkish Democrats to repudiate "softs" like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore; the essay won Beinart--already a fellow at Brookings--a $650,000 book deal and high-profile visibility on the Washington ideas circuit. Subsequently a statement of leading policy apparatchiks on the PPI publication Blueprint challenged fellow Democrats to make fighting Islamic totalitarianism the central organizing principle of the party. Replace the words "Al Qaeda" with "Soviet Union" and the essay seemed straight out of 1947-48; the militarized post-9/11 climate of fear had reincarnated the cold war Democrat. A number of leading specialists signed a letter by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century asking Congress to boost the defense budget and increase the size of the military by 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. The "Third Way" group of conservative Senate Democrats recently introduced a similar proposal.

-SNIP-

Those insiders who doubt the wisdom of a hawkish course often get the cold shoulder if they stray too far from the strategic line. After criticizing the rush to war, Ivo Daalder of Brookings became the foreign policy point man for Howard Dean's insurgent campaign. Many of Daalder's colleagues at Brookings and elsewhere sharply criticized Dean, and afterward unnamed Democratic insiders bragged to The New Republic that Dean's advisers would never work again. That, of course, didn't happen, but Daalder and others have since tempered their opposition rhetoric. Today Daalder blames the antiwar movement for Dean's defeat and calls for more troops in Iraq.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&c=1&s=berman

[Jacobin]

1. The premise of the article doesn't square with the conclusion reached

Its simply a description of the 'problem', with a clouded suggestion that democrats have to jump on the Bush/PNAC/Neo-Con bandwagon to be elected and completely ignores the fact that 58% of the Americans polled recently view Iraq as unnecessary and an invasion that did not make us safer.

These democrats who want to be lemmings are free to jump right off the cliff. If they don't see what has changed and take advantage of it, they are free to go into political oblivion, and the sooner the better.

The real damage those dems are causing is the backstabbing of democrats who support change in our foreign policy. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The Nation sucks big ones and is a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[papau]

3. "backstabbing of democrats who support change in our foreign policy"

is not something I am seeing. Is disagreeing as to a plan for next 6 months, a plan for next year, now called "backstabbing"?

We have an overextended miltary/Guard/Reserve and the solution is more troops until such time as we can get agreement to bring them home.

Yet saying more troops are needed gets some on the "left" all uptight as they read those words as meaning the person does not want to get out of Iraq ASAP.

[KoKo]

4. I disagree. This article points out Exactly what's wrong and why any Dem

who tries to form a policy that doesn't go along with what the supposedly "liberal Think Tanks" have written for them is drowned out. Here on DU we argue constantly about the very issues this article points out. We can't understand why only Biden is on every weekend and why grassroots issues aren't heard over the din of WAR, WAR, WAR.

The Nation Article points out why other voices in the Dem party can't be heard. The article focuses on our Military Situation but you can bet the "Liberal Think Tanks" don't want to support any Dem who talks about Corporate Greed and Corruption and the influence Corporations have over our lives with health care, living wage, workers safety, environmental degradation and the rest.

The Nation article doesn't focus on how the Strategic Class drowns out the discussion over what's wrong with America in that the very rot that got us into Iraq is destroying our quality of life...but this is a start in our understanding why Kerry and Edwards and anyone else who runs for office can't get a message out. They allow the "Strategic Class" to define the message and write their speeches and control their opinions.

Edwards did try to focus on what's going on with average Americans but it came off hollow when the country was focused on "Terra, Terra and War in Iraq."

As I said, every DU'er needs to read this because it's the last piece of the puzzle for the whole picture of what's happened to us going back beyond what happened to Al Gore in 2000 when Democrats didn't stand up for him and fight back.

[blm]

5. Agree. Its the strategists who make money telling candidates to move right

or move left.

Dem platform and Dem consensus on the everyday issues isn't the problem, though consultants want them to think it is so they can take control of the message that pays them the most.

Dems don't need to move further right or further left on any issue. The Dem platform in 2000 and 2004 were as fair and encompassing of a wide range of views as any ONE party can get.

Its the strategists who want to get paid for tinkering with those positions.

What we need are better SPOKESPEOPLE to act as representatives of the Dems fairer and smarter positions on the issues.

We need discipline of message, not every man for himself and his benefactors.

The RNC and the RW media had a disciplined message that they stay on, while their counterparts on the left, especially the leftleaning media were left in the dust. Mainly, because they refiuse to align their message.

[papau]

2. blames the antiwar movement for Dean's defeat - interesting - the

antiwar movement can be a force for good - or bad as in electing yet anothe GOP chickenhawk.

I wonder what path the Nader/anti-war/Green folks will choose in 08.

However I can guess - and that guess ould be no change from 00 and 04.

Until the focus is on ending the RW GOP nightmare, I am not sure that the Nader/anti-war/Green folks - however nice as leftwing friends - are really election time allies of the Democratic Party.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Dean was assassinated by the Govt/corp/military/ entertainment complex

He absolutely resonated with the voters, and energized the democratic base to levels not seen in many years.

[wli]

7. the "strategic class" is just far right-wing thinktanks

There is also grossly corrupt crap like the American Turkish Council and similar. It's really bad.

These freaks need to be arrested en masse once we get some real Dems in office.

[KoKo]

8. Kick...for those here on DU, like me, who argued this issue over and over

and over and over...We argue it because NO ONE answered our questions.

Here...we have an answer. Read it and understand...what's at stake...:shrug: This article really "tells it all" and answers to me, personally, the "lots of questions I have had about why our Dems have done so poorly in the last decade and beyond.

[KoKo]

9. .15