thedrifter
10-04-07, 07:07 AM
Leaving Kennedy behind
MATT BONDY
GuelphMercury.com
Oct. 3, 2007
http://fontman.smugmug.com/photos/203741183-L.jpg
The official presidential portrait of John Fitzgerald Kennedy tells quite a story. His pensive expression, curled shoulders and folded arms are not mere emblems of the physical ailments he so manfully absorbed; they help cut the figure of a northeastern liberal -- a Democrat -- who through inspired oratory and steely resolve faced down Soviet communism.
This, at a time when many were resigned to the inevitability of its expansion.
But Kennedy -- historic though his presidency was, and beatified though it has become -- in his time was not breaking the mould of the Democratic party in the United States.
Today, we associate the Democratic political tradition with a deep reluctance to use lethal force and a religious opposition to unilateralism. But it was not always so.
Lest we forget, it was Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt who committed the United States to the Second World War, albeit belatedly.
It was Roosevelt's successor, Democratic president Harry S. Truman, who employed nuclear weapons for the first and as yet only time in the history of armed conflict.
And it was Democratic president John F. Kennedy who contained the communists at Berlin and challenged Soviet expansion in Indochina. One could even say Kennedy was openly belligerent toward the more conciliatory Soviets, whose interest in détente was requited only by American resolve to roll back the tide of militant socialism.
This is the venerable tradition of Democratic foreign policy. Today, it's being starved to death by unworthy stewards.
In November 2006, the Democrats earned lean majorities in both houses of the U.S. congress. How? Easy. They made a promise to a war-weary nation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. They promised a "new direction" for American foreign policy and bashed the Republican administration of George W. Bush for maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq.
(Of course, what congressional Democrats left out of their campaign leaflets was that they are completely powerless to dictate foreign policy to the commander-in-chief.)
Since winning congressional majorities, the Democrats have invested precious political capital in humiliating the administration and sponsoring failed legislation after failed legislation designed to embrace defeat in Iraq and extract American troops from that country's "civil war."
While House and Senate Democrats continue to sponsor meaningless legislation, all the while, U.S. commanders in Iraq have been implementing the president's bold "surge" strategy.
To discuss the effects of this new strategy, the U.S. commander-in-theatre, General David Petraeus, recently addressed the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. There, he outlined the nature of the coalition's challenges in Iraq and the prospects for success.
Much to the Democrats' chagrin (one leading Democrat went so far as to say success in Iraq would be "bad" for the Democrats), the U.S. commander in Iraq reported that the new strategy has yielded significant decreases in sectarian violence and has enabled coalition forces to put al-Qaida-in-Iraq on its heels.
This led one anti-war House Democrat to belatedly endorse the surge strategy as the most plausible and responsible way forward in Iraq.
He was subsequently bludgeoned by his colleagues who've tied Democratic success in the 2008 mid-term and presidential elections to failure in Iraq and swelling opposition to the administration's prosecution of the War on Terror.
But many leading Democrats have done more than acquire a taste for defeat. They've become certifiably hypocritical.
In 2004, the Democrats drew up "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy," which outlined that party's vision for American leadership in the 21st century.
"America must not waver in its determination to help Iraqis establish a decent, representative government, which could inspire and encourage democratic reformers elsewhere in the region," the report said. It concluded: "In this, we simply cannot afford to fail."
Evidently, things have changed. With few exceptions, the Democratic party has tacked sharply to the left, appealing to their base of support instead of appealing to the finest traditions of American strength and leadership.
Democrats are holding their breath while the president does his best to stabilize Iraq, contain Iran and stay on the offence against hostile actors in the Middle East. Then they attack him for any and all difficulties incurred in a war they authorized and have tried indefatigably to lose since things got tough in 2004.
Is this the posture Democrats will bring to the 2008 elections? Will they not consider the effects of a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq and what that means for regional security? Will they permit Iran to achieve regional hegemony? Will they mince words while Israel remains under threat from state-sponsored terrorists in Lebanon and Syria?
So far, these questions have gone unanswered. Though Iraq remains the central theatre of the American-led sponsorship of liberty, security and moderation in the Middle East, the Democrats want out.
They say things are too hard in Iraq. They say, through their leader in the Senate, that the war is "lost." They say America can't hold the line in Iraq and turn the country around.
In another time, and about other places, similar words were spoken. But not by Democrats in our fathers' era.
Disturbed by his countrymen's pessimism and trepidation during the Cold War, Kennedy declared, "I hear it said that West Berlin is military untenable. So was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad," referring to two well-known sieges of the Second World War.
"Any danger spot is tenable if men -- brave men -- make it so."
The Democratic party will surely live on. But the survival of Kennedy's party is another matter altogether.
---Matt Bondy is a member of the Mercury's Community Editorial Board.
Ellie
MATT BONDY
GuelphMercury.com
Oct. 3, 2007
http://fontman.smugmug.com/photos/203741183-L.jpg
The official presidential portrait of John Fitzgerald Kennedy tells quite a story. His pensive expression, curled shoulders and folded arms are not mere emblems of the physical ailments he so manfully absorbed; they help cut the figure of a northeastern liberal -- a Democrat -- who through inspired oratory and steely resolve faced down Soviet communism.
This, at a time when many were resigned to the inevitability of its expansion.
But Kennedy -- historic though his presidency was, and beatified though it has become -- in his time was not breaking the mould of the Democratic party in the United States.
Today, we associate the Democratic political tradition with a deep reluctance to use lethal force and a religious opposition to unilateralism. But it was not always so.
Lest we forget, it was Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt who committed the United States to the Second World War, albeit belatedly.
It was Roosevelt's successor, Democratic president Harry S. Truman, who employed nuclear weapons for the first and as yet only time in the history of armed conflict.
And it was Democratic president John F. Kennedy who contained the communists at Berlin and challenged Soviet expansion in Indochina. One could even say Kennedy was openly belligerent toward the more conciliatory Soviets, whose interest in détente was requited only by American resolve to roll back the tide of militant socialism.
This is the venerable tradition of Democratic foreign policy. Today, it's being starved to death by unworthy stewards.
In November 2006, the Democrats earned lean majorities in both houses of the U.S. congress. How? Easy. They made a promise to a war-weary nation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. They promised a "new direction" for American foreign policy and bashed the Republican administration of George W. Bush for maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq.
(Of course, what congressional Democrats left out of their campaign leaflets was that they are completely powerless to dictate foreign policy to the commander-in-chief.)
Since winning congressional majorities, the Democrats have invested precious political capital in humiliating the administration and sponsoring failed legislation after failed legislation designed to embrace defeat in Iraq and extract American troops from that country's "civil war."
While House and Senate Democrats continue to sponsor meaningless legislation, all the while, U.S. commanders in Iraq have been implementing the president's bold "surge" strategy.
To discuss the effects of this new strategy, the U.S. commander-in-theatre, General David Petraeus, recently addressed the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. There, he outlined the nature of the coalition's challenges in Iraq and the prospects for success.
Much to the Democrats' chagrin (one leading Democrat went so far as to say success in Iraq would be "bad" for the Democrats), the U.S. commander in Iraq reported that the new strategy has yielded significant decreases in sectarian violence and has enabled coalition forces to put al-Qaida-in-Iraq on its heels.
This led one anti-war House Democrat to belatedly endorse the surge strategy as the most plausible and responsible way forward in Iraq.
He was subsequently bludgeoned by his colleagues who've tied Democratic success in the 2008 mid-term and presidential elections to failure in Iraq and swelling opposition to the administration's prosecution of the War on Terror.
But many leading Democrats have done more than acquire a taste for defeat. They've become certifiably hypocritical.
In 2004, the Democrats drew up "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy," which outlined that party's vision for American leadership in the 21st century.
"America must not waver in its determination to help Iraqis establish a decent, representative government, which could inspire and encourage democratic reformers elsewhere in the region," the report said. It concluded: "In this, we simply cannot afford to fail."
Evidently, things have changed. With few exceptions, the Democratic party has tacked sharply to the left, appealing to their base of support instead of appealing to the finest traditions of American strength and leadership.
Democrats are holding their breath while the president does his best to stabilize Iraq, contain Iran and stay on the offence against hostile actors in the Middle East. Then they attack him for any and all difficulties incurred in a war they authorized and have tried indefatigably to lose since things got tough in 2004.
Is this the posture Democrats will bring to the 2008 elections? Will they not consider the effects of a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq and what that means for regional security? Will they permit Iran to achieve regional hegemony? Will they mince words while Israel remains under threat from state-sponsored terrorists in Lebanon and Syria?
So far, these questions have gone unanswered. Though Iraq remains the central theatre of the American-led sponsorship of liberty, security and moderation in the Middle East, the Democrats want out.
They say things are too hard in Iraq. They say, through their leader in the Senate, that the war is "lost." They say America can't hold the line in Iraq and turn the country around.
In another time, and about other places, similar words were spoken. But not by Democrats in our fathers' era.
Disturbed by his countrymen's pessimism and trepidation during the Cold War, Kennedy declared, "I hear it said that West Berlin is military untenable. So was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad," referring to two well-known sieges of the Second World War.
"Any danger spot is tenable if men -- brave men -- make it so."
The Democratic party will surely live on. But the survival of Kennedy's party is another matter altogether.
---Matt Bondy is a member of the Mercury's Community Editorial Board.
Ellie