Wes Clark Provides the Answer to Questions Democrats Should be Asking; Part 1
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on August 19, 2007 - 9:24pm.
Democratic politics | International | Iran | National Security | Wesley Clark
Summer is rolling on and Labor Day is approaching. George Bush and Dick Cheney are now almost certainly the least popular President and Vice President team in American History. John McCain, the G.O.P. pretender to the throne who once was feared as the only man with sufficient stature and integrity to convince the American public to renew the Republican lease on the White House, has departed center stage after a war vote malfunction stripped bare his passion for the Iraq surge, exposing him as unelectable in the Super Bowl of politics. Meanwhile the Democrats have a very strong field of presidential candidates. At least the media keeps telling us so, and given the quagmire the G.O.P. now seems stuck in, it’s hard to argue otherwise. That could be the reason why so few do argue otherwise, since conventional wisdom is much easier to repeat, but cracks that can fracture the veneer of Democratic complacency are hiding in plain sight, where many refuse to see.
For one thing, the Democratic Party still has not shaken its inferiority complex compared to the Republicans when it comes to National Security. If you doubt that you need look no further for evidence than the August 4th vote by 16 Democratic Senators and 41 Democratic House members to support Republican written legislation giving George Bush’s near laughing stock of an Attorney General constitutionally unsupported authority to spy on the international telephone calls and e-mails of Americans, in the name of keeping America safe from terrorists. Anyone who found that vote shocking simply has not been paying close enough attention to Democrats in Congress. Democrats may have found the courage to often unite against the Iraq War now that it is universally unpopular, but they still rattle sabers against Iran almost as well as the best Republican Chicken Hawks around. It is that knee jerk need to posture as tough as Republican that led a Democratic Senate to issue George Bush a blank check for war against Iraq in 2002. Very little has really changed.
Most of us indulge in speculative pop psychology from time to time, so this should be familiar terrain; how do most men who are insecure about their masculinity tend to act in public? Correct: with compensatory macho aggressiveness. Well it’s something like that with many of today’s Democratic politicians. They may truly believe in promoting Peace, and of course they are quick to let the Democratic Party’s anti-war leaning activist base know that about them, but then comes the overwhelming political urge to compensate for that expression of “softness “ with some hard edged rhetoric about protecting America from its enemies. Too many elected Democrats believe they still have to prove to many American voters that they are tough enough to keep them safe.
Why is that exactly? One part of the answer is sensible enough; Americans want to feel safe in a world that they believe poses real dangers to them. Democrats who ignore that sentiment do so at their own political risk when they run for national rather than state or local office. And of course Republicans, perceiving a likely political advantage, always do what they can to pump up the public fear factor. Today’s National Republican Party has evolved into a political machine that only runs well when it runs against a threat posed by enemies, both domestic and foreign but especially foreign. It almost doesn’t matter who the Republican candidate is, they get brand name marketed, and too few voters really question what’s actually inside that box.
The Republican brand name is identified with National Security, the military, and a strong defense. The Democratic brand name isn’t. So a Republican candidate for president who was an eager war evader, a man who had rarely even physically left this country let alone show any real grasp for understanding the world, managed to get enough votes (both real and imagined) to defeat two internationally seasoned Democratic Viet Nam veterans in back to back elections, the first in a time of relative peace, the second most definitely not.
Say whatever you will about them, but no man or woman who manages to get elected to Congress is truly objectively dumb. It takes some street smarts if nothing else to out maneuver other potential candidates from your own party to win the nomination to run for even the safest of seats, and no one wins a contested election without at least mastering the art of campaigning. Democrats running for national office (Congress included) know about the chinks in their Party’s brand name, and they always choose a plan to deal with it. If they are blessed with a progressive enough constituency that task is relatively straight forward and simple, but few have that luck, and no Democratic Presidential candidate either during the Cold War, or since 9/11, ever has had an easy ride in that regard. Time and time again they chose between one of two deeply flawed options to stay competitive.
Option A is to essentially cede Republicans the National Security advantage, while trying to still beat them by outscoring the G.O.P. on issues that play better to Democratic strengths. No candidate would publicly admit to that, just like none would admit that they plan to virtually write off any region of the nation when it comes to allocating sufficient campaign resources at the beginning of a campaign, but it still happens. Option B is a significantly different variant employed by other Democrats that essentially depends on a strategy of mimicking Republicans (Democrats using this option should not be confused with the small group of hard core Democratic hawks who really do have deeply engrained identical views on National Security issues as most of today’s National Republicans – though of course those using this option go out of their way to sow that very confusion). It covers most of the “sound tough” crowd I referred to above. At base it’s a form of camouflage. Democrats employing it hope that if they too use tough rhetoric that sounds similar enough to what voters expect to hear from Republicans, the perceived difference between the political parties on National Security can be fudged enough to make domestic issue differences the only ones that ultimately stand out when it comes time to actually choose who to vote for.
Can Democrats win national elections using either Options A or B? Yes, if they run a very skilled campaign, or if the tide of public opinion for whatever reason is then running strongly enough against the Republican Party. But either the candidate’s skill or that public tide must truly be formidable, because the main stream media is not the Democrat’s friend when it comes to matters of National Security, as evidenced by the essentially cheer leading, white washing function it played in the run up to the invasion of Iraq then, and the similar role it is playing regarding Iran now. And even when the Democrats run and win with a candidate possessing formidable political skills, and a tide that is running against the Republicans, which was the case with Bill Clinton in 1992, something significant happens. We fail to ace the elections. We don’t put the Republicans down for the count. We govern with dangerously thin majorities, and/or by courting the votes of Congressional Democrats with a vested interest in sounding and acting like Republicans all too much of the time. And we suffer progressive setbacks like a Democratic Congress passing the FISA bill this month.
Right now this nation may be one major domestic terrorist attack away from ushering in a Rudy Giuliani presidency. Of course that attack may never happen, no matter how often the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with the color codes or issues terror attack advisories, but then again it just might. Lord knows the Bush Administration has been very busy over the last six years increasing America’s enemies and reducing America’s friends. There also is that unresolved matter of pending war with Iran, which George Bush is free to initiate at any time under his own authority, given that the current Democratic Congress is so loath to be seen tying the President’s hands in advance on that one. The Democratic Party’s two preferred strategies for dealing with the Republican Party’s current brand name advantage on National Security (with a partial exception for the war in Iraq hereby granted) is to focus their energies elsewhere or essentially mimic Republicans. Neither is a winning strategy if new security concerns come to capture the public’s attention in 2008.
And this is where General Wesley Clark has been offering the Democrats a way out of the current rigged box. Wes Clark offers Option C: Become the political party that effectively promotes America’s security. The answer is so simple as to be audacious; stop side stepping the challenge, and stop pretending to be something Democrats are not. Embrace the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on National Security and show the public that our way will keep them both safer and more prosperous; safer because America will have fewer enemies in the world, more prosperous because our treasury will not continually be drained by endless wars to the advantage of select war profiteers.
Rearranging the identities pegged to the brand names of the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning national security won’t be accomplished simply by hiring better PR firms to design more effective ad campaigns. Symbolism is part of it but it must be backed by substance. People are funny when it comes to matters of life and death; they take it seriously. General Clark has helped provide a historic opening to the National Democratic Party, a chance to redefine itself in the eyes of a critical swing slice of the public after 30 years of Republican battering in the wake of the Viet Nam War. Clark laid his four stars on the table for the Democrats, which in itself conveys important symbolism, but in Clark’s case he consistently backed that symbolism up with very real and ongoing substance.
Wes Clark is not a photo op politician; the uniform of his decades of service is never offered up by him as a political prop. Since entering politics in 2003, General Clark has been in constant meaningful dialogue with the American people regarding matters of national security. His PAC website is called “SecuringAmerica.com” and a quick browse of it offers a more meaningful overview of the challenges facing America in the 21st century than a typical Graduate level class in international relations. In redefining and then explaining the basic elements needed to guarantee America’s ongoing security in the coming decades, Wes Clark paints a very different picture than the one being sold by Republicans, and unlike some Democrat’s mimicry, Clark offers the depth found only in legitimate three dimensional vision. Look no further than Iran to see that difference.
Unlike the two dimensional posturing that most Democratic politicians engage in regarding Iran, which consists of mostly sounding tough while saying we should be willing to talk directly with Iran, General Clark is not afraid to admit to and explain at length how our government’s own behavior contributes to the dangerous current impasse between our nations. Not only is Clark fearless about advocating “Give Peace a Chance”, he describes what that peace could actually look like while detailing a series of specific steps that might take us from here to there. And he goes beyond that to positively reframe America’s ongoing position in the world community looking forward to the changes the 21st century will undoubtedly bring.
Democrats need to articulate a real strategy for furthering peace and prosperity in the world, one that goes beyond platitudes and actually rings true to American’s who believe there are those in this world, men like the frequently cited Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, capable of harboring ill will and intent toward us and our nation. Wes Clark prominently states at the StopIranWar.com web site that he co-sponsors with VoteVets.org: “War is not the answer”. Democrats need to explain why that is so at time when real security threats confront us, while we still possess the most powerful military in the world.
It is not an easy task but it is one that General Clark thinks Democrats can and must be up to, both to secure significant victories as a political party, and to secure real peace for our nation. It is why Wes Clark is our longest and strongest member of the new “Fighting Dems”, working to recast the Democratic Party’s image, while broadening the Democratic Party’s message and base, so that we can recast our nation’s policies and govern with strong majorities committed to using our nation’s resources to help our nation’s people.
Wes Clark represents a bold and different approach that the Democratic Party now has an option to pursue. Whether it will or not is still uncertain.
this reminds me...
Why can't we at least create our OWN verbiage on this issue? Why did we have to borrow the tired ole Bushian Rhetoric vis a vis the Terra-ists? And till this day we're still doing it.
We (the annointed Dems "we") keep insisting that we're going to
HUNT 'EM DOWN
Whether costumed in a spiffy new hunting outfit or not, this has always bugged me coming out of the mouths of Dems who should A) Know better or minimally, B) Be more creative than to parrot bush.
Why are we dragging this dusty phraseology around in our toolkit? It's baffling. And despite all the clamor about his wordsmithing skills-- I've heard Obama say it too.
"We're gonna hunt 'em down"
Oooh. Big bad scary.
Dems need new writers with original scripts
If I'm not mistaken "fatherland" has already been used. :)
Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©
used as well:)
these guys really don't have much of an imagination...they're just good at taking what doesn't belong to them.
Like people's lives and their money and their health and their environment and their sustainability.
Heimatland / Homeland:
In German, homeland is translated as Heimatland, and this was a term used by the Nazis to refer to the German "Fatherland." It was also the name of a strongly pro-Nazi magazine edited by Wilhelm Weiss during the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.
Drawing from the Nazis' usage of the term "Vaterland", the direct English translation "fatherland" featured in news reports associated with Nazi Germany and in domestic anti-Nazi propaganda during World War II. The English word is now associated with the Nazi government of Germany.
www.pzg.biz/book_hitlers_heimatland.htm
Poll 85% think global warming is happening the other 15% work for the White House synthetic environment
where the extremely rich (those who benefit from arms sales and no bid contracts and oil revenues and the like) are being permitted to play russian roulette with our future and our real "security" in order to profit from hundreds of billions of tax dollars diverted from public services like health care and schools and bridge maintenance to enrich this small group.
Peaceful coexistence destroys their game. They are willing to risk our financial and geopolitical sustainability tosatisfy their insatiable greed. Rupert Murdoch is their cheerleader...trumpeting war, demonizing people who would criticize Exxon for thwarting efforts to control global warming, always taking the side of what enriches the elite at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
If Democrats, frightened by the power of these entrenched interests to attack anyone who threatens to come between them and the dinner table, fail to stand up for change, we will continue moving down a path to financial bankruptcy.
The Republicans and their neocon agenda have been the greatest threat to the security and sustainability of this country.
Remember how Wes announced on September 17th, 2003 and later he said he got in way too late? Tom Rinaldo, you are a wonderful writer. Nobody can say you haven't given it 110%
The third one was position papers. he's definately got that! Money? it will come. Staff? 
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
even though you mis-spelled "throne." (3rd line.)
Wes Clark 08 For Real Leadership!
Titling Snob. Blog Police.
Getting to where I'm getting askeered to post here anymore!
: )
When do we get "Content Snob"? Or Metaphor Snob. Heehee. :D
Poll 85% think global warming is happening the other 15% work for the White House synthetic environment
LOL!
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Try your friendly neighborhood Amazon store. :)
Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©
will go look.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
find surprises of all kinds Google Images: search word - grammer snob LOL
Poll 85% think global warming is happening the other 15% work for the White House synthetic environment
Tom, when I saw this blog in the list of "bests," I was expecting a specific list of questions and Clark's answers. Maybe your title should be "Wes Clark fills an unfilled Democratic need" or something similar.
If this is going to the outside world, it might be more effective if it were a little tighter, crisper, shorter, and focused, boring in like a laser on the specific point(s) you want to make. Lots of the background is interesting, but the piece's sheer length may turn some people away -- people who need to "get" what you're saying.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
My intent was to communicate a double meaning with it, both Wes Clark knows the answer for Democrats and Wes Clark can become the answer for Democrats - as our candidate for President. I think this change preserves that ambiguity but partially clears up the confusion you pointed out.
As to a shorter edit, I'll give that some thought. I just got up here and have to run out of the house now for a while before I can get back to this. I threw this blog up at Democratic Underground and for the first time made an entry at "Open Left" using it. But MyDD and Kos are still possible outlets for a rewrite.
Gotta run now. I unfortunately will miss hearing General Clark live on the radio, so you know I will be checking in soon upon my return.
because, even though the diary is excellent, the attention span of readers, on, say dailykos, where there is so much to read, may warrant a shorter crisper edit "boring in like a lazer".
My suggestion is a very short intro that points out that while Republicans may have grabbed the national security mantle, the policies they have followed have in fact made us less safe, rewarding their mega donors at the expense of our financial and geopolitical security. And that Democrats who are intimidated by Republican fear tactics or who may be beholden to the same special interests are failing to frame the debate on what is real security.
After that short premise, your detailed portrait of Wes Clark's framing of the security issues would reach the reader while they are still fresh, so to speak.
Thanks so much for all you're doing to keep our hopes alive for an enlightened leader to enter the 2008 democratic primary. If Clark doesn't enter I've pretty much given up hope that we will change what has been going on for a very long time but has been blatantly exposed by Bush/Cheney.
I sort of just split the difference with you and Stan, although the rewrite I just completed is closer to my orignial than a wholescale revision I'm afraid. Two reasons for that. Probably the most compelling is time, I don't hsve enough. It is far less time consuming to selectively edit a piece keeping it's internal architecture mostly intact than it is to reassemble it differently, which requires a lot of wholesale internal adjuctments to pull off well. The other reason is that I really want to make readers key in on the larger struggle Democrats face now, and how and why that is so, in addition to presenting the better option that Wes Clark now offers us. I think that helps the content hold a broader appeal.
Still I managed to lop off two or three paragraghs total, almost all from the first part, plus break up the text into smaller visual bites, all of which I think lends itself to a less intimidating and crisper read. I will post the revised version at a couple of sites later today and will let folks know when I do.
Thanks to you and Stan for your feedback.
response. I love reading your diaries and my suggestion was more a reflection of my experience with the daily kos readers.
Many people seem to have made up their mind on a candidate and seem to have little patience reading about a candidate who has not declared.
I can't understand why there is not a ground swell at dailykos to implore Wes Clark to run.
That's why I agreed with Stan on his "laser" approach to wake people up so to speak.
Other than that I found your diary very well thought out. It is a complicated subject and deserves a thorough analysis which you cover extremely well.
After I posted my comment I immediately regretted it and was embarrassed about making any suggestion to you who I greatly admire as a writer and even though we have never met I consider you a friend who speaks for me.
They really are, don't ever be shy about making them to me. I only have to listen as much as I want to after all, but feedback is almost always valuable, and both with this Diary and the one before it I made what I think were constructive changes after receiving some. In this case the changes are in the version I posted at MyDD tonight, which will also go up at Kos some time in the morning.
Having a chance and the encouragement to make a second pass over it enabled me make it a little shorter without taking out anything that really mattered to me. I don't lead directly with Clark and only hint at him in the new title itself partially to attempt to draw in some readers who are more interested in the concept than the personalities, not to mention those who might think it somehow "disloyal" to open a thread praising a Democrat other than the one they are backing for President.
It isn't realistic to expect the larger netroots to create a new groundswell for anyone else to enter the Presidential race now, and that isn't because a new candidate like Wes Clark wouldn't be welcome, or that he wouldn't receive substantial support should he still decide to run. The only person who can convince people at every level of politics that Wes Clark, for all practical purposes, hasn't really written off another presidential run is Wes Clark himself. I'm not saying that Clark has for all practical purposes written one off, just that most people outside of core Clarkie circles assume that he already has, even if that assumption is actually false.
People aren't seriously pushing for Russ Feingold to run for President now. No one is asking Howard Dean to leave the DNC and run again now either, but both men would excite the netroots if they chose to run. I suspect that those in the netroots who would like someone new in the race doubt their own capacity to bring about that reality, and I must say I can't blame them for that. At this point in the game there is little else that people like us can do to encourage Wes Clark to enter the race that has not already been done, and most activists won't give their time, attention, and emotional attachment to attempting to make something happen that they believe is beyond their ability to effect.
Most Kos readers are pleased with or resigned to the current field of Democratic candidates as the case may be. The only thing that would cut through that status quo would be if another popular Democrat committed to entering the race. Maybe some wheeler dealer types with the ability to help raise millions or swing Congressional delegation endorsements still feel empowered enough to think that their influence is enough to help pull a new candidate into the race, but it just ain't so for the average netroots activist, not at this stage in the race.
I think the true sentiments of the mass of Kos readers was reflected in the reception over a thousand of them gave to Wes Clark at 8:00 AM on a Friday morning at Yearly Kos. The respect is there for Clark, and so is the love. Support would follow if he decides to run for President, but the ball now is in his court. It has to be his decision now to enter the race that will activate the support that is out there now waiting for him, not the other way around.
I really hope we get the chance to meet Eve. I know we can be great friends
your thoughtful reply.
I was heartened to read about the 1000 strong reception for Wes Clark and agree, yet again, with your thoughtful analysis.
We live in Houston and if you travel to our neck of the woods please let me know. It would be a pleasure to meet you.
Thanks for helping us Clarkies stay hopeful.
I look forward to reading your diary tomorrow.
It was linked to by my Google alerts on General Clark.
It's a wonderful piece, perfectly edited.
I think most people have sensed this problem but we haven't been able to frame it in a way that brings it out into the open and then solves it.
Your thesis is brilliant and so, by inference, is Wes Clark to bring us that solution.
You understand him well.
Thanks and best of luck.
...because here is where I see the problem.
While Democratic Party leaders have periodically invited WKC to advise them, and have used him in Capitol Hill photo-ops, they have never embraced him to the extent that they acknowledge him as a Party spokesperson on matters you raise in your excellent piece.
Who speaks for the Democrats on the issues you raise because
when branding, the product usually has a spokeperson or two with whom the public associate the brand.
The Republicans have been good at their national security/military brand identification because their spokesperson has usually been the President of the United States. Ike, RR, GHWB, GWB.
Who amongst the Democratic Party Leadership exudes strength on matters of national security and the military?
Close your eyes and repeat after me: Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Dick Durbin. Rahm Emanuel. John Edwards. Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton. Who did I miss?
Rudy continues to run strong because the masses want leaders who seem strong, and those same masses are willing to overlook flaws if they can feel safe. Otherwise, what is the explanation for his successful campaign theme: It's all about those pictures of me being strong on 9/11?
Joe Biden tries hard and gets lots of chances.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Indeed Joe Biden appears on national TV as much as any Democrat. If you showed 1,000 average Americans (the type that are part of political polls)a picture of Joe Biden and asked, "who is this person" I suspect the ID would be very low.
Democrats need to overcome their inferiority complex on the issues of national security/the military, as General Clark has been lecturing activist groups since the 2004 presidential elections.
It is a steep climb to achieve parity (in the mind of the public) with the Republicans on these issues. 2008 will be the most opportune time since the debacle began 40 years ago.
Neither Obama nor Edwards can cut the necessary mold. Hillary is tryng -- and beating these two men, but falls far short of being the ideal spokesperson.
Having said this, it is clear why so many of us remain sickened by the realization that Wes Clark isn't able to be a candidate.
I am holding out that FATE will intervene.
While Democratic Party leaders have periodically invited WKC to advise them, and have used him in Capitol Hill photo-ops, they have never embraced him to the extent that they acknowledge him as a Party spokesperson......
If I wasn't so afraid for our democracy, I'd be all for Wes abandoning these bozos.....
Then the Democrats said: "Wait a minute! That's unconstitutional!" Right? Actually, no, they didn't. Even liberals like Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, argued in two heated, closed-door meetings on Aug. 3 that the Democrats might as well cave. Otherwise, they would be pounded during the August recess for ignoring national security and destroyed as a party if the country were actually attacked. Even though the leadership and 82 percent of House Democrats voted against the bill, they did not block it, delay the recess and hold the Congress in session. The private excuse was that the liberal base wouldn't be satisfied no matter what they did,...
Maybe he's as disgusted with them as we all are.
All the more reason to jump in the race. imho
Run Wes Run!
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
While not ready to leave NYC, would be happy to visit as often as possible.
Canandaiguia (sp) has great facilities and is an idylic spot to set up a community.
With Eric Massa as the local congressman, you would be all set.
is quite nice...although there are MANY nice towns and villages in the district to choose from.
We're leaning that way...don't know when it will happen, but when it does, the welcome mat will always be out for Clarkies!
is around there somewheres. I could go there. I've got lots of bug spray leftover from my OH years. ;)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
And the inadaquate answer to your question - "Who amongst the Democratic Party Leadership exudes strength on matters of national security and the military?" - I think goes a long way toward explaining how the race for the Democratic nomination is playing out so far.
From that bunch the answer is Hillary Clinton, partially because she is a bright and articulate speaker, but also because she already spent 8 years in the Clinton White House. She is no fool and neither is the public. They can tell the difference between spouses like Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton. No one doubts that Hillary didn't go through much of the same international seasoning that her husband did, who of course happens to be the last Democrat who inhabited the Oval Office.
by Robert Baer
[Those narcissists running for office are content to be entertainers for the masses (who obligingly throw money at them because the show must go on) instead of tackling the hard problems in any meaningful way. I'm keeping my eye on the escape hatch.]
I hope General Clark gets a chance to read your posts....
That's when Amazon says Wes' book will be out. I do think that if he isn't called on by the MSM for intreviews and policy statements after this pub date, it's a lost cause. I would assume he knows that too.
This new book should be his big chance to articulate the very things you all write about here...his policies, experience, etc. I mean, how can they not invite him to talk about it! ...
I do notice on Amazon that among the statements of support for his new book we see Bill Clinton. These make interesting reading. However, as some of you said, he may not want to upset the HC boat.
the time to lead is now
WES knows it
Bill (from RI)
Actually I planned to post it at Kos but my mouse was screwing up while I was over there and causing my browser to revert to prior pages, and while I was dealing with that things sort of got confusing, lol, and it resulted in my deleting my Diary there by accident. When I tried to repost it I came up against the one Diary per day Kos limit, so that will now have to wait for tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile it is up now at MyDD under the title Option "C" for Democrats - Winning on National Security.
Here's the link:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/21/164930/200
Ken