Don't Fall in the Trap

I usually don't like to disagree with Yglesias most because his intellectual strength intimidates the hell outta me, but I'm going to take a shot here. Today he posted:

"Writing about Democrats' tendency to want to shoehorn energy policy issues into discussion of national security, Ezra says he "can't quite decide if the subject is acting in a complementary way to a straight national security policy, or serving as a substitute for an issue Democrats are still uncomfortable talking about."


"The correct answer is that it's serving as a substitute for an issue Democrats are still uncomfortable talking about. Global warming is an extremely important issue for the country. It's potentially a favorable issue for the Democratic Party. But when people say they want to hear from Democrats about foreign policy, they're saying they want to hear a message about war and peace. The trouble is that you can't articulate a clear theory about war and peace that doesn't provide a clear conclusion about Iraq. And reaching a clear conclusion about Iraq would involve confronting the large number of Democratic elites who backed the war.

"People on both sides of that divide, however, have been very interested in sort of covering up the breach and having everyone play together nicely. And party unity is a good thing. But you're never going to have a clear, forceful message on the core foreign policy issues unless you're willing to take a stand on preventive war, on democratization by invasion, etc." (Itz mine)

I think his last statement is the trap that the GOP-Rove machine has created that has sunk Democrat candidates since 2000. (Or at least post 9/11). Furthermore I think that the idea that a canidate should take a "stand on preventive war, democratization, etc" is a red herring. It's as if I say that a candidate can't have a clear, forceful message on national security unless he takes a stand on torture. There are historical foreign policies guidelines that have been set in US for ages and have worked well for us based around the idea that the US will not put troops into a foreign land unless that land is a direct and imminent threat to the US or US interests. (and likewise, if you didn't know, we did pretty good with banning torture as well) Now obviously, this rule has been broken again and again, mostly for dubious reasons. But the fact remains that these decisions come on a case by case basis, and furthermore, any competent leader must acknowledge the fact that they must be decided on a case by case basis. Trying to make these ideological doctrines the sole basis for implementing foreign policy seems counterproductive.

As a side note: I was just thinking about Supreme Court nominations. Remember how every time they pop up there's always someone who wants to ask the litmus test question? Something like "If a case about abortion comes up will you vote for or against it?" What does the nominee usually say? "Well, I'll rule on the merits of the case." Then, with the exception of the few radicals, every one sagely nods and says how wise the nominee's answer was.