Is the Democratic base too provincial for Wesley Clark?

[BeyondGeography]

I've been watching George Packer on C-Span for much of the past hour. He's written an article about the Democrats and foreign policy in The New Yorker, in which he charges that the Democrats haven't had a foreign policy since the Vietnam War, and that they have essentially been reacting to events for the past few decades. Other points made by Packer:

•The Democratic base is uncomfortable with assertions of American power abroad.

•The war on Milosevic in Kosovo was a model of the constructive use of American power.

•He's surprised that Clark hasn't talked more about Kosovo and how it can serve as a model for American foreign policy going forward.

•Clark has instead portrayed himself as an "anti-war candidate."

Packer's comments I think shed a lot of light on the challenges faced by Clark in the Democratic primary. As a career military man, he has had to confront deep-rooted bias against the military in the Democratic base, much of it irrational. He has perhaps had to overcompensate by making himself dovish on Iraq in particular and military intervention in general to the point where he is crowding out his convincing message about asserting American power abroad as part of a multi-lateralist foreign policy philosophy that seeks to make us safer.

For all the attention paid to Iraq, jobs, health care and education remain the primary obsession of the Democratic base, and there is something provincial about that. America accounts for 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's economic activity. The impact we have on the world is enormous, but how much do we discuss that at our town hall meetings?

Wes Clark is the most advanced foreign policy thinker in this campaign, but he has had a difficult time playing to his own strengths because much of the base simply isn't interested in what he has to say. Ultimately, it's their loss, not his.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1

[LiberalBushFan]

1. not too provincial, but too paranoid and bigoted

Anyone with enough foreign policy experience to impress swing voters will make Democrats paranoid.

[bowens43]

6. Clark has no relevant foreign policy experience ,

he has no political experience, he has no history of supporting Democrats or our causes and he has no workable proposed policies. Bigotry and paranoia? Yes, win our hearts and minds....

LOL! Desperation is an ugly beast.

[LiberalBushFan]

10. you have no heart or mind to win

I've seen more anti-Clark posts than pro-any candidate posts from you by far

[Tim_in_HK]

2. I think that is spot on.

The main reason I support Clark is foreign policy. Beyond his opinions about our activity in Iraq (of which I also am in agreement), I also think the General is the best.

I wholehearedly agree with how he sees the US as a force for good in the world. But a force that practices a foreign policy based on our real core strengths: liberalism, institutions and democracy, and that only uses military strength as a last resort. But if military power is needed, so be it.

In my opinion, the fact that Clark was the leader (and chief proponent battling some powerful opponents in both the administration and pentagon) of a campaign to end genocide says more about his view of the world than any of the other candidates talking about multilateralism.

I also think that there is a bias against the military in the Dem party. Hell, I even had it myself. Really the only way I overcame it was thru meeting, studying with, and working with people in the US military dealing with international affairs. There are some incredibly smart and dedicated people in there (obviously), and it's sad that it took me so long to realize that. But I'm glad I did.

Based on Clark's actions, his books and what others have written regarding him, I know how Clark sees the US in the world, and its a view I share. And it is the best way for the US to be safe and secure, and to actually win the fight against terrorists.

on edit: typo and clarification

[BeyondGeography]

3. Thanks, Tim. Is "HK" Hong Kong?

If so, I used to live there in the late 1970's. What an amazing place...

[Tim_in_HK]

5. Yes, it does.

Been here about 3 years. We really love it.

I'm sure it's changed ALOT since the late 70s . . .

[fiorello]

4. To the contrary - Clark's popularity reflected the Dems' broadening base

When Clark announced, base-Democrats jumped for joy. There really seemed to be a hunger for a reconciliation between liberals and the military.

Clark was hurt more by his past record of voting for Nixon and Reagan.

Clark did great when the race seemed to be Clark vs. Dean. He faded when it became Clark vs. Kerry - because Kerry also has military and foreign policy experence.

I agree with your concerns - but let's not wring our hands!

[Bucky]

11. (Welcome to DU, Sanfo) For me Clark's strength isn't For Policy; it's Econ

Good points. I won't cry (too much) if Clark isn't nominated. I think he has strengths of character and intellect (and electibility) that Kerry is lacking in. But obviously a majority of my party doesn't see it that way. I can live with that.

I tend to like Clark more for his domestic progressive views. His taxation idea is a little more radical than I'd propose, but it really is visionary. His understanding of the Constitution and the way our government is supposed to work is the most sophisticated, subtle, and spot-on that I've seen from any presidential candidate in a coon's age.

Nonetheless, he's only a mediocre campaigner. The ones who win at this level have to take it to a new level. Reagan did it--to the point of having 3rd term coattails for his sorry ass vice president. Clinton had it in terms of almost pure mojo. Dubya had something closer to it than Gore did and nearly got elected president despite a complete lack of experience, qualifications, or knowledge about the job. Clark has qualifications, but he doesn't have mojo. Edwards has mojo and Kerry fakes it pretty good. That'll get you elected, but I don't know if that alone can allow you to govern well.

I hope we'll see.

[Shanty Oilish]

7. Some Democrats...

have a lot of contempt for the demos in democracy. We who aren't dazzled by Wesley Clark are sheep, swine (as in pearls before), bigots, provincials, and paranoids. The most advanced thinker has lost 11 out of 12 races and will lose more today, and you call us losers?
If Clark can't convince substantial percentages of Americans to trust him with the office of president, perhaps he cannot win, cannot lead even sheep.
When I read these types of comments on behalf of Wesley Clark, I often wonder if he holds these opinions of the American people himself. Or if you would want anyone wondering about that. In any event, such remarks do not reflect well on the man.

The people who go out and cast their votes are not the dumb herd animals. To belittle them is to lament democracy.

[DancingBear]

9. Sorry Caroline

But when I hear reasoning like "I'm voting for Kerry because he stayed until the end of his speech and answered all the questions" or "I'm voting for Edwards because his speech made me cry" (both of which I heard in person) I think the sheeple analogy fits.

I'd love to think otherwise, but I've not seen it in this campaign, and I've been on the ground in both NH and VA. The lack of candidate knowledge (ALL candidates) by the general populace is astounding. It truly is nothing more than a beauty contest and a herd mentality now. Thank you, Terry.


.

[Johnyawl]

8. I don't agree at all

As sanfo said, there was early enthusiasm among the democratic base for Clark. I was thrilled when he announced; Kerry & Graham(my first two choices) were both floundering, and there seemed no viable alternative to Dean. Kerry jumpstarting his campaign has helped to stall Clark's, but Clark has brought some of that on himself. He has run a very poor campaign, from what I can see. A case in point is my own state, Washington. We have a large active duty military presence in this state, 5 major bases, and a large population of military retirees, & veterans. On the day of our caucus, a brigade of our National Guard boarded airplanes, bound for Iraq. This state should have been a big, ripe, juicy plum for him. And we're relatively early in the process where a win would have helped to create that ever important momentum. From what I can see, and I do pay attention, his organization was virtually non-existant here. I don't even remember him campaigning here.

Clark's a great man, and I certainly expect that he'll have a role in the next Democratic administration (hopefully SoS), but his inexperience at campaigning, and running a campaign (i.ei., hiring the right people) has hurt him.