The Misguided Desire to Seem "Hawkish"

Apologies for the length of this post, but the shortsightedness of the conventional wisdom that the Establishment regularly spews out never ceases to amaze me. Most of America's self-proclaimed political experts, of course, have never actually worked on a political campaign, yet purport to speak with the authority of gurus. Similarly, most never have to deal with the life-and-death consequences of their overheated rhetoric – a factor that often leaves their prose devoid of any real gravity.

Case in point is the conventional wisdom that claims the only way for Democrats to win is to be more "hawkish." This line of reasoning is best known to come from people like Peter Beinart – the self-righteous ivory tower editor of the New Republic (a publication that is, not surprisingly, steadily losing readership). And today, he is backed up by Kenneth Baer, who basically argues that Democrats need to be more hawkish to court Jewish votes (an underhanded insult to the intelligence of Jews). Baer is also joined by writer Matt Yglesias (a guy I happen to like), who bills himself as a "more 'hawkish' brand of liberal," and says the answer is to "convince more liberals that they should like" hawks.

Remember, it is easy to spew out tough-sounding talk when you don't have to actually deal with the life-and-death consequences of your rhetoric. And from the confines of their offices, these folks seem all-too-comfortable advocating for more war no matter what the reason, and more blood being spilled in the name of "hawkishness" and political expediency. After all, it's not their blood or their families' blood. And besides, writing this kind of crap let's them overcompensate for their clear personal insecurities and a pathetically sad desire to appear macho and "tough."

Yet, amazingly, these arguments held sway during the 2004 presidential race, even as American support for the Iraq War deteriorated. As Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi noted, the media continued to write pieces "whose premise held that the Democratic Party – the Democratic Party! – needed to overcome its anti-war reputation" and Democratic candidates fell over themselves to agree, essentially giving the big middle finger to the growing majority that was opposing the war. Organizations within the Democratic Party itself even joined in. "If Gandhi were running in this race," Taibbi wrote, "the Democratic Leadership Council – bet on it – would be warning of a McGovern-like landslide defeat."

This "hawk" argument, however, is as hollow and pathetic as it is wrong. The question these Establishment voices never answer is why? Why do Democrats need to be supportive of irrational warmongering (aka. "hawkishness") when most Americans oppose the Iraq War? Do Democrats have to be "pro-war" to be pro-America? And, most importantly, is it really true that Democrats must be "hawkish" to project strenghth?

If you are an insulated pundit who never visits America's heartland and thus arrogantly thinks Americans are uniformly stupid, the answer is yes. But if you know that Americans are, in fact, quite smart, and already understand that irrational warmongering actually weakens our country, then the answer is no – especially now at a time when a majority of Americans oppose the war.

Democrats should not to try to out-hawk the Republicans – they should be focusing on articulating an entirely alternative foreign/military policy. This is a policy that says we will never pull punches in defending America, but part of that defense means the judicious – not irrational – use of America's military. It is a policy that is critical of sending American troops to die for bad or dishonest reasons – not one that simply says a "hawkish" willingness to bomb any country for no reason is a virtue. It is a policy that says the pursuit of peace is actually a way to better secure our country, one that says being against war unless absolutely necessary is actually a good thing, and one that says we shouldn't actually WANT to use our military to deal with every problem as "hawks" do.

Now I know – anytime you use the word "peace," these same insulated elites are quick to spew out red-baiting calls that you are "weak." Far from it. The current "hawkish" policies that we are living under now are what's weak – they weaken our security by overstretching our military and fueling anti-Americanism all over the globe. The alternative to this conventional "hawkishness" I have described, on the other hand, would make us stronger, as was forcefully laid out by respected figures like Sen. Bob Graham of Florida during his presidential run (and don't even try to claim that Graham's alternative foreign/military policy was the reason he lost the primary – he had other problems as a candidate).

In many ways, if the party continues to follow this "hawkishness" the logical conclusion is the bipartisan embrace of fascism. "If we accept the premise that campaigning against war is impossible," wrote Taibbi, "then it’s silly to lack a specific plan for how and where to attack. The Republican idea, echoed by most Democrats, is to sit around, wait for some dubious justification for the use of force to present itself, and then trot out some incoherent cover story on the eve of attack. What’s so tough about that? Why take the long way around? It’s time to make the world safe for America" by fully embracing world domination.

Sure, that's an extrapolation - but it points to how the real challenge for Democrats is to lay out an actual alternative. Instead of Democratic presidential candidates and self-proclaimed liberal pundits falling all over themselves to promise America Democrats will (as the GOP does) bomb, kill and maim anyone they please and send American troops to die for bad reasons, the party needs to have the guts to lay out an alternative. Democrats need to show a willingness to use the military - but only as a last resort - and stress the security virtues of actually preventing war. That is a foreign/military policy contrast to the Republicans that will be most patriotic and politically effective in the long term.