A New Way?

By Robert Samuel

As 18-to-24 year-olds study current political culture and begin to plot ways in which they can influence the political process, most thoughts are framed around the two-party structure. But with significant dissent over the direction of the country and the lack of popularity with both the Republican and Democratic parties, should youth continue to define their political beliefs based on which party they most identify?

Both parties have survived for over a century through many different political eras. They have endured a Civil War, two World Wars, a Cold War, and economic depressions, while remaining almost entirely unchallenged as the hegemonic powers of American politics. But could a new partisan structure uproot the behemoth of tradition?

It is impossible to imagine either the Democratic or Republican folding or morphing into a different party in the near future. But if a new party does emerge a decade from now, current evidence suggests that, rationally, this should be unsurprising.

Roughly two-thirds of the country believes the US is heading in the wrong direction. This sentiment has had due effect on the ruling Republicans, but Democrats have lost popularity, as well. As George W. Bush’s poll numbers have fallen, one would expect presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s to rise. Hers, too, have fallen.

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 24 percent of Americans say the Republicans represent their priorities as opposed to the 26 percent that say the Democrats do.

This suggests that politicians are more polarized than their continents. While the Democratic Party has become more liberal and the Republican Party has veered further to the right, Americans have become more discontent.

With the proper leadership, a new moderate party could completely reshape American politics with the creation of a new party. With the primaries forcing nominees of both parties to pander to ideological groups, the current political problems are doubtful to fix themselves. It is unlikely public opinion of the two current political parties could dip much farther without some sort of major change.

Even in times of discontent, the American political system did not change. Even against the challenge of one of our most magnanimous and persuasive leaders—Theodore Roosevelt—the same political parties remained.

But this does not mean they cannot change. In the early 1850s, Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest proponents of the Whig agenda. There is no need to repeat the story of his promoting the Republican agenda as President ten years later.

While political parties have had a more revolutionary history in democracies in other parts of the world, the recent actions by Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could be a scenario to play out in the United States in coming years. Sharon founded the conservative Likud party, but as Likud continued to drift to the right, Sharon left Likud and has founded a moderate party to best fulfill the Israeli national interest.

As we 18-to-24 year-olds observe and comment on politics, we should keep in mind in our personal arguments and discussions the fragility of our current political party system and refuse to allow them to shape our views. A new way could soon be upon us.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: Crazy Like a Foxman

By Rob Goodman

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has just taken a week of scolding from the right for criticizing the creeping “Christianization” of America. In so doing, the head of the anti-Semitism watchdog organization evidently offended those who would love to see Evangelicals and Jews remain bestest buddies, provided the Jews stay very, very quiet.

I once promised my rabbi to donate $100 of my bar mitzvah loot to the ADL and never got around to it, so I feel a special obligation in writing this post. Nevertheless, Foxman’s conservative opponents deeply sadden me with their bad misunderstanding of the whole secularism debate, so I’d feel obligated even if I hadn’t stiffed Abe at age 13. His critics’ poor arguments fall into three groups:

1. What Christianization?

Foxman argued that religious conservatives are “trying to bring Christianity to all aspects of American life. They’re not just talking just about God and religious values but about Jesus and about Christian values.” Among other evidence, the ADL director cited a national poll of Evangelicals showing large majorities in support of “organized” prayer in public schools (60 percent) and public display of the Ten Commandments (89 percent).

Mishuggeneh, replies David Klinghoffer of National Review Online. “If Foxman means… legal coercion,” Klinghoffer argues, “his accusation is ludicrous.” Well, ludicrous is an awful high bar to meet. Klinghoffer begins by conceding that the push for Intelligent Design is in fact just such an attempt at legal coercion by religious leaders; his only argument is that “Christianization” goes too far: it’s “a phrase that conjures the Spanish inquisition.”

So Klinghoffer chooses to attack Foxman’s language instead of his point. But is there any doubt whose religion Intelligent Design ends up promoting? Intelligent Design doesn’t come backed and funded by Muslims; it isn’t based on a fundamentalist reading of the Rig-Veda. And that’s just one instance out of dozens; when the federal government funds churches, when Congress meets at midnight to overrule a federal court’s jurisdiction in the Terry Schiavo case, when the FDA rejects easy access to the morning-after pill before reviewing the scientific evidence, when a federal panel led by a former member of Focus on the Family holds up an HPV vaccine because it “could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage”—and when all of it is done for motives that any objective observer would be compelled to find transparently religious, and transparently Christian—are secular Jews justified in being maybe just a smidge verklempt?

Nope. That would be ludicrous.

2. Hey, look over there!

That’s the essence of the point made by Mark Krikorian over at The Corner:

“Employees at organizations like ADL… must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the ‘threat’ posed by Evangelical Christians.”

Well, that’s sorta fair. If the ADL wanted to combat the maximum number of anti-Semites, they’d relocate to Riyadh. But who says they have to? They’re a dedicated domestic policy group, and as long as their aims are legitimate, who are non-members to tell them what’s more legitimate? That would be a little like me telling James Dobson to forget about the Supreme Court and instead go stop the maximum number of abortions in China—it would be disingenuous, and really none of my business.

3. Judaism ≠ Secularism

Again at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg is subtler. He says Foxman’s speech hurts the Jews by tying them to radical secularism more broadly: “My concern is that Foxman's effort will contribute to the idea that the secular-liberal war on Christianity is in some significant way a ‘Jewish’ attack as well. That's not good for the Jews, not good for America, not good for anybody.”

The problem is that Goldberg really underestimates how inherently Judaism and secularism go hand-in-hand. That doesn’t mean Jews are unreligious—it means that Jews are wisely wary of public religion, for the simple reason that Jews are almost always and everywhere the minority. For Jews, the imposition of public religion means the imposition of the dominant religion. And public religion, with all its totalizing tendencies, usually entails an exclusivist social agenda; the same people who put up the Ten Commandments in courthouses also want to restrict our access to vaccines. Jews, so often on the damnèd end of the stick, understand the risks. Perhaps that’s why even Israel is a secular Jewish state in a sea of theocracy.

I understand that Foxman-Klinghoffer-Goldberg must just sound like a big ol’ Jew-off. But all of this has much larger ramifications when it comes to the ways in which coalitions are built and sustained.

Religious conservatives seem to think that support on Israel buys them Jewish silence on everything else. But if I’m right that secularism is integral to Jewish America, Foxman’s speech was a major turning point: the declaration that there is only so much that Jews are willing to sell out.

Rob Goodman is a 2005 graduate of Duke University and is currently an English teacher in Tucson, Ariz.

The Democratic Field for 2008

By Andrew Collins

Surely, we shouldn’t begin speculating about Democratic Presidential nominees for 2008 this early. But one person’s “shouldn’t” is another person’s “can.” In other words, let’s take a look at the field.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the anointed frontrunner by opinion polls and the political establishment. In a Nov. 4-7 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, Clinton was the favored nominee by a landslide margin over John Edwards, Al Gore, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Wesley Clark and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Forty-one percent would vote for Clinton, compared to 14 percent for the runner-up, Edwards. She has held this huge lead for months.

Clinton brings unmatched political strengths and weaknesses. First, it is not known how much her gender would galvanize female voters, nor is it known how much it would alienate Regressive America. On top of the gender issue, the potential value of her Clintonness is unclear. It could help woo people nostalgic for her husband’s administration and who want his influence back in the White House; on the other hand, plenty of voters will want nothing to do with either.

Clinton has been a centrist, savvy, somewhat hawkish Senator so far, but her task will be to communicate this newfound centrism to independents with enough force that the inevitable right-wing “weak [female] liberal” war cry fails to sink in. This may force her to run to the right of most of her opponents in the Democratic primary, an undesirable position that could leave her vulnerable to an upset.

Joining her on the Democratic Party’s moderate flank is Mark Warner, the wildly popular governor of Virginia. After he improbably swept Tim Kaine into office as his successor, Warner became a favorite of moderate Democrats and a fearsome specter for Republicans who know his wide appeal. He is telegenic, wealthy, moderate, tech-savvy, and inclusive; his main weakness now is his lack of national name recognition. But barring a surprise, he will be Clinton’s chief competition for the nomination. He will likely position himself as the more electable alternative to the polarizing Clinton. Unfortunately, in the minds of some, he will also be valued as the male choice.

The dark horse is Edwards. His once-bright political star has dimmed, but he has had note-perfect political timing since leaving the Senate in 2005. He became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, expressed regret for his Iraq vote, and positioned himself as a protectionist, pro-worker liberal. In this post-Katrina, anti-Iraq War climate, these stances may strike a chord with voters. Furthermore, in a primary where Clinton and Warner will likely have to run moderate, Edwards could emerge as the new ambassador of “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Only 3 percent of respondents in the NBC/WSJ poll said they would definitely not vote for him as a nominee—the lowest of any candidate named—suggesting a large potential base.

Call me crazy, but I don’t sense a widespread public clamoring for the return of John Kerry. He was few Democrats’ favorite choice in 2004, and will not likely be in 2008 after debunking the “electable” myth. He ran a muddled campaign, came out worse than expected on Election Day, and did not use the occasion of his defeat to show that he was actually human and funny (see: Gore, Dole). My hunch is that he will pull out of the race before the first primary. Our loss.

Gore is a somewhat different case. It will have been eight years since his defeat, not four, so any lingering candidate fatigue will have faded further. The faults of his campaign—gaffes, too many process stories, message lurch—would not necessarily cling to him in 2008. Gore would have more room for improvement than Kerry. Furthermore, there is a certain symmetry in having Gore reclaim the White House from President Bush, whom many people believe he rightfully beat in 2000. However, he will not likely run.

Biden, Richardson, Clark, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, and Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold are other possible candidates. The forces of ego in that list could move mountains, and yet the group is also replete with inspiring leaders.

Rendell and Richardson are charismatic and brilliant politicians, but have gaffe problems. Biden, Dodd, and Vilsack are solid but may not be able to garner enough attention to mount a credible run for the nomination. Clark has too many enemies, Napolitano is too obscure, and Bayh and Feingold might just have to wait their turn. Of this group, I predict Richardson, Biden, Vilsack and Clark will run, and one will probably fare surprisingly well.

A crowded field, an entertaining batch of candidates, and another great debate about the future of the Democratic Party and our country. Get ready.

Corzine’s Decision

By Anthony Vitarelli

Having recently been elected governor of New Jersey, Senator Jon Corzine will have to resign from the United States Senate upon his inauguration in Trenton. A perk of the state’s constitution (as with many other states’) is that the governor has the authority to appoint a US Senator if a vacancy exists.

Numerous Democratic officeholders have been lining up for this opportunity since Corzine announced his gubernatorial campaign, including every Democratic Congressman except Steve Rothman. Two schools of thought have persisted as to how Corzine will ultimately come to his decision.

The first theory goes something like this: Corzine will select a “caretaker” Senator who will not seek to retain the seat in 2006. This tactic absolves Corzine of any responsibility for taking sides in the current Congressional internecine political battle. The caretaker would clear the way for what would undoubtedly be a brutal, expensive, and high-profile Democratic primary.

Unfortunately for Corzine, it looks like he is going to have to get his hands dirty. The Republican Party has already coalesced around moderate State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. As the son of a former governor and chair of the 9/11 Commission, Kean has enormous statewide name recognition, a moderate voting record, and an aggressive fundraising schedule. He is very much constructed in the pro-choice, pro-environment mold of former Governor Christie Todd Whitman--the last Republican to win statewide in New Jersey.

Given Kean’s prominence and GOP unity, the Democrats must exploit the advantages of incumbency. Corzine should appoint a Democratic Senator who intends to retain the seat in 2006 and will begin to campaign immediately. In the months between Corzine’s inauguration and the November 2006 election, the new Senator should appear in national and local news as a Senator and should be able to enjoy the privileges of a statewide officeholder.

So who is it going to be?

Until Wednesday afternoon, Acting Governor Dick Codey had become the current media darling, due largely to the fact that his statewide name recognition and approval ratings dwarf those of any Congressman. Unfortunately, it does not seem like Codey wants the job. Corzine would be wise to appoint Codey to head the New Jersey Gaming Commission or another North Jersey-centric executive agency.

The only three left in serious contention are Congressmen Bob Menendez, Rob Andrews, and Frank Pallone.

Menendez has been the front-runner from the start. A Latino from Union City, Menendez has risen through the Congressional leadership and current serves as House Democratic Caucus Chair--setting him apart from Andrews and Pallone who do not have a similarly national profile. A recent Quinnipiac Poll demonstrated that Menendez is the only Democrat in the State besides Codey who currently polls ahead of Kean in a head-to-head match up. Menendez also leads the pack in fundraising, with over $5.1 million in the bank.

Of the three, Andrews has been most vocal concerning his aspirations for Corzine’s seat, candidly informing supporters that he will be seeking Corzine’s seat following his election as Governor. Andrews is hawkish on defense and a fiscal conservative. In 1997, he narrowly lost to little-known Woodbridge mayor Jim McGreevey for the Democratic nomination for Governor and the right to challenge then-Governor Whitman. Along with Menendez, Andrews cochaired Corzine’s gubernatorial campaign.

Pallone cut his teeth advocating for environmental issues in coastal North Jersey. Having been repeatedly elected as a Democrat in a Republican district serves as his most compelling argument for appointment.

Given the financial demands of the campaign, the ability to campaign effectively against Kean, and the consideration of selecting the most capable representative, Corzine has no choice but to select Bob Menendez.

Money isn’t everything, but New Jersey is an expensive place to run a campaign. Since none of the candidates will be self-financing, the ability to raise serious money within the state, as well as nationally, must prominently figure into Corzine’s calculus. Without doubt, Bob Menendez has a deeper Rolodex in New Jersey than the other two and can also raise funds beyond the Garden State.

As far as campaign abilities, Menendez has campaigned nationally for other Congressional Democrats, notably in 2002 during his national campaign for the House Caucus chairmanship against Rosa DeLauro. Andrews already has a statewide loss on his record, and Pallone has little experience beyond his district. Score another point for the former Union City mayor.

Unfortunately, Menendez serves as a de facto political boss of Hudson country, which may hinder his campaign unless he takes purposeful steps to distance himself from the machinations of unseemly Democratic city politics there. This may also hurt him in Corzine’s mind, as the Governor-elect ran a decidedly anti-corruption campaign.

Despite this potential shortcoming, Menendez still stands above the field as the most qualified and capable candidate to fill Corzine’s seat. Additionally, his appointment would be historic in that New Jersey has never had a Latino statewide officeholder. New Jersey's new Governor should resign his seat as soon as possible and appoint Menendez to begin doing the work of the people of New Jersey and campaigning to retain the seat for the Democratic Party.

Popularity and Wartime Leadership

By Robert Samuel

When the White House disclosed that George W. Bush was reading “Supreme Command” by Eliot Cohen in summer of August 2002, more was revealed than Bush’s reading tastes.

The book profiles the leadership of four of the West’s greatest civilian wartime statesmen: President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau during France’s struggles in World War I, Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II, and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion during Israel’s struggles with Palestine. From his study, Cohen determines civilian leaders must artfully intervene in military affairs to produce the most desired military results.

His conclusions radically contradict what is widely believed to be the central lesson of the Vietnam War: that statesmen should not interfere with generals in planning of military strategy and actions. Cohen is the director of strategic studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins and widely considered the most influential neoconservative in academia.

The book is believed to have greatly influenced how Bush has conducted the War on Terrorism and specifically the Iraq War. With public support waning to frightening low levels, perhaps Mr. Bush should be abandoning Cohen’s ideas and finding new ones.

What would, however, be more beneficial for Bush and the nation is a more detailed reading of democratic leaders’ ability to prevail in wars.

Democracies have never been particularly good at preparing for war. The political system produces a somewhat decadent culture that rarely adequately trains its populations for the atrocities of war. Though war preparation is always troublesome for liberal societies, their illiberal enemies are almost without exception surprised at their resiliency once wars begin. This is mostly because of hardened militaries and superlative civilian leadership.

As Bush struggles with his increasingly dissatisfied population, what else can he learn from Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, and Ben-Gurion? One of the less historically obvious features of the four’s leadership is their lack of popularity at various points. War requires significant sacrifice, and sacrifice is often not popular. What allowed the four leaders to be redeemed by history was the leaders’ steadfast determination to see through to unconditional victory despite significant and widespread dissent over their actions.

Bush has never been one to govern based on polls. But he has never felt political pressure like he has recently. Bush must continue to make the proper wartime decisions regardless of his political standing. While this advice may seem obvious, the political realities of 2005 make this easier said than done.

Bush’s steadfastness, however, must not get in the way of creativity. Lincoln in particular tried many strategies in winning the Civil War, firing several generals. The only thing consistent in Lincoln’s thinking was that they were all in an effort to win the war. Bush needs to consider every possible strategy, rather than exclusively “staying the course.”

Bush is no Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, or Ben-Gurion. But if he follows the principles they showed in their fights against the enemies of democracy, Bush will be far more popular with future historians than with current commentators.

Pie to the Face? Two Votes

By Andrew Collins

Americans have always taken their bitter spoonful of politics with about four quarts of entertainment sugar. May the best showman win.

Young George Washington famously lost his seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses because he failed to provide libations for his supporters. The next election, Washington wised up, provided a huge spread of alcohol, and swept to a rum-soaked victory.

Entertainment in politics continued in the late 19th century, with political campaigns and conventions serving as boisterous block parties. More often than not, a local political boss would put on such a good show—replete with bunting, big brass bands, makeshift fireworks and handmade sausages—that the candidate himself would be inaudible or forgotten in the tumult. Just as well, since few politicians at the time had much useful to say.

But the 20th century trumps all previous eras for political chicanery, with its myriad of technologically dazzling and all-pervasive entertainments and a devolved political process that prefers narrow special interests and industrial influence to monolithic party structures. The result has been an infusion of entertainment in politics from all sides. Commentators duel, spit, and spin on Fox News Channel. Right-wing and left-wing nutjobs upchuck doctored photos and wild tall tales into the blogosphere. Attack ads get the blood boiling, concerts “for change” get the feet tapping, and the local meet-up and house party have become bread-and-butter staples of campaigns. Entertainment in politics, clearly, is alive and well.

Trouble is, scant correlation exists between entertaining ability and governing ability. An entertaining apparatus is designed to convince, cajole, and cue emotions. Such an apparatus could theoretically be useful in a governing context, but in practice, it is seldom used for anything but preparing for the next election. Furthermore, the entertainment infrastructure is seldom at the direct disposal of an elected official, particularly in this day and age. President Bush, for example, cannot just tap Fox News to run his public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. Entertainment media are infinite and fragmented, united only in a spirit of self-interest.

Entertainment can also conceal a marked inability to govern. Martin van Buren, Old Kinderhook, swept to the Presidency thanks to the parade-throwing Albany Regency machine, a catchy “OK” slogan, and a good-times vibe. That he was a wholly pedestrian politician was irrelevant—until the Panic of 1837, of course, when the band stopped playing and America was left with a stagnant and woefully mediocre President. Earlier this century, another President likewise rose to power on a catchy slogan, good-times vibe, and powerful political machine. Luckily, unlike Old Kinderhook, this President has proven to be a rousing success.

What has coexisted with politics and entertainment since American time immemorial—and what has been the country’s secret to policymaking success and stability—is our vast, competent bureaucracy. Say what you will about government inefficiency and interdepartmental infighting, but from Department of Agriculture analysts to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one can hear the steady hum of sound, sober policymaking. The American governmental bureaucracy did not really become excellent until the civil service reforms of the late 19th century, but even before then there existed a competent coterie of “learned men” and governing elites who put productive policy over popularity, parades and popcorn. Upon their shoulders—not Boss Tweed’s—American government became great.

Acknowledging its power to distract from real issues and delay sound policy, can anything be done to offset, minimize, or remove the influence of entertainment in politics? Perhaps. Accept first that human beings will always pay to be entertained, whether with money, attention, or some other currency, and that this payment can give politicians the footing they need to win elections. There become two ways to deal with this reality: avert it with a system of noncompetition—a totalitarian state, clearly out of the question—or give people other motivations that will offset their desire for entertainment.

The definitionally slow nature of American democracy and our peculiarly balanced federal system means that a vote is rarely associated with visible, immediate change in one’s life. But imagine if power were much, much more locally concentrated in city and county governments. All of the sudden, a citizen would be less inclined to vote for a city council candidate based on her campaign barbecue and more inclined to vote based on the huge impact her election would have on his personal security and finances. Entertainment is a permanent part of politics, but with lifestyles truly at stake in a way voters could appreciate during a campaign, it could be more than offset by issues of policy. In some ways, this would be more like ancient Greek times, where the very local nature of city-state policymaking led to a healthy engagement in substantive policymaking on the part of the general public.

The reasons against a massive concentration of power in municipalities are too numerous to name. Suffice it to say that while entertainment in politics far from positive, it is not such a scourge that I would sacrifice all my federalist principles to offset it. For now, it looks like entertainment in politics is here to stay. But hey—even if it brings us down, at least we’ll go down smiling.

The Democrats’ Iraq Dilemma

By Anthony Vitarelli

As press reports continue to describe the increased disorder of Iraq, the rapidly escalating human cost, and the lack of an exit strategy, Democrats find themselves in a particularly difficult political and policy quandary.

With President Bush’s sinking approval ratings and the public outcry for “bringing home the troops,” any Democrat can gain cheap airtime and a boost in the polls for criticism of the war’s management. Taking it a step further, Democrats can (as many have) demand specific timetables for withdrawal of American troops – a call certain to please military families and those sick of hearing about American deaths in the Middle East.

Here’s the thing though: that’s a really bad idea.

From a policy standpoint, immediate or explicitly scheduled withdrawal is not in the long-term, strategic interests of the United States. Iraqi security forces cannot handle the current insurgency, and the Iraqi government has not shown itself capable of managing their security issues without United States military support. The potential result of a failed Iraqi state bodes far worse for long-term American interests than our current malaise.

Unfortunately, the status quo is equally untenable. Our military recruitment has plummeted, morale is low, and depreciation in equipment has not been adequately financed in new Defense budgets. Perhaps most importantly, it does not seem that we are winning. Our current occupation strategy has not retarded the insurgents in any meaningful way, and the country’s trajectory does not appear to be on the rise.

Thankfully, there are more choices than maintenance of the status quo and full withdrawal. On Wednesday, John Murtha – a conservative and hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania – boldly proposed a bit of middle ground. In an excellent discourse on the current state of affairs, Murtha proposes, “to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.”

Murtha recognizes the unsustainable nature of our current occupation, as well as the stresses that it places on our military. However, as with most political proposals, his plan lacks details and still seeks withdrawal too quickly.

The United States must make more directed investments in the social stability of the country and its domestic security forces. Iraqis currently lack faith in their government’s ability to maintain order without the US, while simultaneously detesting the US presence. Only continued, stabled municipal processes – like fair elections, sound management of utilities, and low crime rates – can instill the faith of the Iraqi people in their government.

From our perspective, American military presence needs to be retooled to focus more on deploying military police officers, rather than traditional infantry soldiers. Our military has not been designed to train another military – one of its current, primary functions. Further in the future, new United States personnel need to be trained more in urban warfare, small team expeditions, and human intelligence gathering. Our Cold War military must evolve into a force than can not only win the Mother of All Battles but also battles against a disaggregated, faceless enemy.

As Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute writes, “counterinsurgency warfare seeks, first and foremost, to win over the civilian population. It recognizes that Americans can't defeat the insurgency; only Iraqis can.” We have to stop fighting this war like Saddam’s army is planning its triumphant return to Baghdad. While we cannot design our strategy to make the Iraqi people the happiest, we need to ensure that when we leave the potential exists for their citizens to prosper economically, express their religions freely, and be safe from internal strife.

General George Casey has testified under oath that the average insurgency lasts about nine years. The administration needs to recognize that to win this war, the Iraqi people need to tire of the insurgency, even if the American voters already have.

Another Horrible Idea from the United Nations

By Robert Samuel

The United Nations finally did not enact one of its stupid ideas this week.

At the second World Summit of the Information Society, nations at last came to their collective senses and voted to maintain the status quo regarding Internet governance. The conference was preceded by weeks of hype that control of the Internet would switch from the United States to the United Nations.

All of the arguments in favor of the United Nations ranged from horrible to bizarre. The first thing the Internet internationalists failed to consider was that the United States invented the Internet. Any analysis of intellectual property rights would side with America over the UN, which has members proud of their illiberal free-speech policies. Along with Iran and Saudi Arabia, China was one of three countries that significantly opposed US control. Does China really want to have a serious discussion about free speech and intellectual property?

The second point the US detractors failed to make clear was why the US should give up control. For all the criticism of the United States’ execution of the War on Terrorism, the US remains the world’s beacon of intellectual and financial freedom. This combination has been particularly astonishing in creating and regulating the Internet, arguably the most influential invention since the printing press. How could the UN improve upon this?

The anti-US-control parties did not discuss how US control hurts the interests of any nation in the world. America can hardly prevent anyone from using the Internet—including Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda—and has allowed sovereign states to patrol cyberspace as they wish within their borders. What could possibly be the complaint of this system? In fact, there was none. The desire for the change was for the sake of change itself.

The ambition for change was solely in the name of internationalism. But many of the nations opposed to the US—such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya—provide more for the world’s anti-globalization forces than for any sort of integration. The mere roster of proponents of UN control was disconcerting. Could any idea or policy that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China collectively supported be good for the world?

And did anyone think through who would physically run the Internet? It would be Kofi Annan and his gang that have presided over some of the most thoughtless international diplomacy in world history. Only the egg-headed diplomats that sit in the General Assembly could have pushed an organization with the strength and the prestige of the United Nations into near irrelevancy. Based on the oil-for-food debacle, one could seemingly expect the Secretary General to earn a five-cent kickback for each e-mail sent throughout the world if the UN ran the Internet.

Luckily the United Nations lost its bid to govern the Internet. But the new agreement lasts only five years. Half a decade from now, a takeover is sure to be once again attempted. Americans must remember the same black-and-white arguments that are true today will be true then about why the United States should forever control the World Wide Web.

Time for an Iraq Commission

By Andrew Collins

President Bush offered yet another steely-eyed defense of the Iraq War last week, emphasizing the importance of “finishing the job.” Finishing the job—not exactly a mission that makes the heart sing with patriotic verve. To hear the President tell it, our Iraq involvement is about as glorious as unclogging a particularly nasty toilet.

The neoconservative pie-in-the-sky goals for transforming the Middle East through Iraq are on hold for now. The best-case scenario for President Bush is a stable Iraqi government and a domestic police force that can keep a terrorist insurgency from evolving into all-out civil war. Even then, a smoldering and uneasy Iraq would hardly be the model democracy that the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal envisioned as a beacon to aspiring revolutionaries throughout the Middle East—a city on the hill redux, if you will.

So we’ve got a gritty task ahead and a President who knows how to plug away with resilience. Sounds fine, except for two problems: (1) agitated Americans of all political and demographic stripes who want the U.S. out of Iraq NOW, and (2) the possibility that we really do not have a plan of action and are facing another Vietnam. Both problems can be solved with the same solution.

It is time for the President to appoint a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel of Congresspeople, State and Defense bureaucrats, political scientists, Iraq and Middle East experts and administration officials to file a public, high-profile report on what we want to accomplish in Iraq and how we are going to do it. Like the 9/11 Commission, this Iraq Commission would provide a sort of public absolution and would give concerned citizens a sense of understanding, relief and confidence in government.

The commission would also be able to guide the administration’s Iraq strategy—which, to say the least, has been a bit muddled at times. (To say the most, it has been a spectacular failure.) A plan or plans might exist at various levels of government, but as we saw when the cabal dismissed a State Department study on establishing a post-war Iraq, the Bush administration has a funny way of making decisions that sometimes leaves sound ideas gathering dust.

Now, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others are fond of saying that we should leave the war strategy to the commanders in the field. But to say we are in a “war” in Iraq is misleading; technically, we are in a war, but more usefully, we are simultaneously nation-building and peace-keeping against an organized terrorist syndicate In other words, we should leave the tactics to the commanders, but the strategy should be fair game for public discussion.

There is no way to know what an Iraq Commission would find. If it advised that Iraq could only be saved through a US commitment, we would have to stay and finish the job—no matter how long it took. We would owe at least that much to our soldiers, and moreover, we would owe it to the Iraqi people. When we invaded Iraq, we took their lives into our hands. To abandon them to despotism, poverty or war would be one of the greatest shames ever perpetuated by the United States.

Even if it found for an extended commitment, the commission’s report would at least give Americans a sense of how long they should expect to have their sons and daughters in harm’s way. With 65 percent of Americans expressing disapproval of the President’s handling of Iraq in a Nov. 10-11 Newsweek poll, clearly the general population is not going to accept vague assurances and no timetable from the President much longer. Something concrete from a credible source like a bipartisan commission would go a long way toward assuaging public opinion.

The commission might also find that Iraq can be saved without a continued US troop presence, that it can never be fully saved, or that it is doomed. The first scenario is unlikely, but if US troops are not needed to accomplish our goals (whatever the commission deems them to be), then let us not waste time in exiting Iraq. As young antiwar activist John Kerry asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The answer: you can’t.

As for a finding of “we’re screwed,” to whatever degree, it can only be beneficial to have a public discussion of what levels of success we are willing to accept and what type of military sacrifices we are willing to make for each level. We might not need to have absolute victory—to the extent that such a thing even exists when nation-building—but here in our democracy, we should not be afraid to listen to the voice of the people.

The prospects for creating an Iraq Commission depend on whether Democratic and war-weary Republican lawmakers can put enough pressure on President Bush to do so. He is not favorably disposed to much public analysis of his major decisions—remember, he initially opposed the 9/11 Commission—but is so politically weakened right now and Iraq is looking so bleak that he might have to capitulate. If so, that is good news for the American people and, frankly, good news for the war effort. With some serious public soul-searching, this thing might be winnable after all.

Lessons Learned from Tuesday for 2006

By Anthony Vitarelli

In the two most important races this election cycle, Democrats maintained control of the Governor’s Mansions in New Jersey and Virginia.

Although Senator Jon Corzine’s nine-point victory in New Jersey exceeded pollsters' predictions, it should have come as no surprise. In 2004, New Jersey voters favored John Kerry over President Bush by 7 percent, and in 2000, they supported Vice President Al Gore by a whopping 15 percent. Also, with its two Democratic US Senators, it is no stretch to call New Jersey a solid blue state. A Republican win would have signified much more about national political trends than the maintenance of this consistently Democratic seat, and, frankly, Doug Forrester is not an impressive political candidate.

On the other hand, Virginia Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine’s victory over Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore portends far more for the influence of the Bush administration and for independent voters’ inclinations toward national GOP policies. Unlike New Jersey, Virginia has not voted Democratic in a Presidential election since 1964, favoring President Bush by 8 percent and 7 percent in 2004 and 2000, respectively, and is currently represented by two Republican US Senators. The respective triumphs of a Democratic gubernatorial candidate and a number of Democratic assembly challengers in this solidly red state cannot be viewed in the vacuum of local politics.

Admittedly, Kaine ran his race tied to the remarkably popular current Democratic governor, Mark Warner. Warner’s appearances in Kaine commercials and campaign stops inculcated their message of continuity in government and consistency of prosperity. Running alongside an incumbent who has enjoyed 75 percent approval ratings gives a bump to any campaign. However, Kaine ran ahead of even Warner’s 2001 numbers in Northern Virginia, as well as every single major Virginia major city, despite being avidly anti-death penalty in an exceedingly pro-death penalty state (70 percent in favor in 2001).

The statistic that may have secured Kaine’s triumph--even in face of the best Republican get-out-the-vote operations in the United States--were President Bush’s approval ratings. President Bush campaigned with Kilgore during the final days leading up to the election, and the public likely viewed them as ideologically similar. This tie to the President may have severely harmed Kilgore, as George W. Bush currently has a 41-to-56 approve-disapprove rating in the commonwealth, with his net approval trending increasingly downward since June.

“There is no question the country has turned dramatically negative about President Bush and the Republican Party, and that is an albatross around the neck of every Republican candidate at every level of government,” said Democratic consultant Mark Mellman. The deep question remains whether these dwindling approval ratings will pay dividends for Democrats during the 2006 Congressional races.

The races of 2006 will rightly focus on national issues: the war in Iraq, the economy, the Libby indictment, and others. Unlike gubernatorial races, which predominantly focus on statecentric issues, like transportation systems or property taxes, the President will have a well articulated opinion on each issue being debated by 2006’s Congressional candidates. Members of the Republican Party will either be automatically aligned with President Bush’s views or be forced to make the bold move to purposefully distance themselves from them. Moreover, Corzine’s and Kaine’s victories will do wonders for Democratic Congressional candidate recruitment, as well as fundraising. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emmanuel is arguably the most capable Democrat to serve in that role in decades. The Democrats are well positioned to regain seats in the House and Senate.

Unfortunately, neither party has a truly comprehensive or clear agenda for the midterms, although you can be sure that Democrats realize that they need some sort of Contract/Pact/Deal with America soon to take advantage of current Republican weakness. As for the Republicans, an anonymous GOP strategist said in Thursday’s Washington Post, "We're tapped out on taxes. We failed on Social Security. We're nowhere on health care. Medicare didn't do it. The war's not going well. The economy's in fact going well, but we're not getting credit for it.” Unless they right the ship soon, even the simplest positive Democratic agenda could bring decisive victory in the few competitive races of '06.

Despite these strong victories (including the refutation of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ballot referendums in California), Democrats cannot be complacent; they need to focus. Corzine and Kaine must assemble able transition teams to prepare for their administrations in January. In addition, Corzine must appoint someone to fulfill the remainder of his Senate term, who will be capable of defeating moderate Republican Tom Kean, Jr., in 2006, who has already cleared the Republican field of any challengers. Finally, national Democratic leaders must coalesce behind a consistent policy platform that resonates with independents and is easily conveyed by candidates.

There is no reason that the election of 2006 cannot look a lot like the election of 2005.

European Solutions for a Global Insurgency

By Robert Samuel

The ongoing riots in Paris represent the lowest moment in the free world’s War on Terror since 9/11.

The United States and its allies consistently incur setbacks in its various theaters—both in covert and overt operations—in the Middle East and Asia. The U.S., however, has virtually no threat to its monopoly of power in Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. soldiers able to hunt terrorists in nearly every corner of Afghanistan. Unlike Northern Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, the United States is able to operate in every province in Iraq.

One can easily find grounds for pessimism. But the American coalition can freely operate in Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorists cannot. Perhaps more importantly, the two nations also have proven to have democratic desires, with over 50 percent of the populations turning out to vote. By no means is Iraq a spectacular military success, but by even less means is it a military disaster.

The events in Paris are, however, disastrous. The animosity of young Muslims has inevitably boiled into rioting and violence after years of injustice. More than ever, it is obvious that Muslim integration throughout the world is the largest variable dependent on ultimate victory against global Islamic terrorism.

Terrorism in its modern form is a global insurgency. Just as the winning of hearts and minds is necessary to win guerilla wars on a micro scale, it is true for this war on a macro scale. The War on Terror may be the first oxymoronic war: a global guerilla war.

One can easily be misled about the nature of terrorism by observing 9/11 and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the attacks occurred on the coastal cities of New York and Washington, D.C., 9/11 appeared as an external invasion. Many of the hijackers had lived in the United States for about a year before that fateful day. The attacks could have just as easily occurred in Chicago or Des Moines had bin Laden and his minions deemed them more valuable targets. In effect, the 9/11 hijackers were an enemy within.

With the plethora of attacks and casualties, Iraq and Afghanistan appear to have a different kind of insurgency than was responsible for the London and Madrid bombings. The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely a more concentrated form than seen in other manifestation of bin Laden’s vision.

Osama bin Laden’s network and its supporters are fighting a horrendously violent insurgency against the idea of globalization. Attacks in Bali are no different than they are in Manahattan. For this reason, anywhere in the world where men and women of Islamic faith are not successfully integrated is a setback as significant as the deadliest improvised explosive devices in Ramadi.

With the Parisian riots entering their second week, France clearly must re-think its social policies. But with every great challenge comes a great opportunity. With its sizable and growing Muslim population, Europe has once again found its role in the world. Since the conclusion of World War II, the continent has had to fight for its international importance. During the Cold War, Europe provided a safeguard between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As the London bombings, the Madrid attacks, and the French riots painfully prove, Europe must again contribute a buffer between the capitalistic and often decadent United States with its contemporary enemy.

The proper solution for dealing with homegrown terrorism and violence in Europe is far different than the strategies for success in the Middle East. The Middle East has been a harbinger for tyranny and extremism for generations. Successfully implementing democracy to provide a far more moderate political alternative is the most proper policy for the region.

Europe already has the democratic institutions that dissuade its citizens from terrorist actions. Europe does not need a political solution to deal with Islamic extremism, but a social one. The children of immigrants in Europe have no connection to any nation or group. They no longer feel apart of their parents’ land and do not feel accepted by the relatively intolerant European societies. Though European Muslim youth arrive to extremist views through different means, the end is the same as those strapping bombs to themselves in Iraq.

The United States has no policy options to solve the homegrown European terrorism problem. The responsibility lies with the Europeans themselves. Efforts to end racism and discrimination against Muslims in Europe must be on the scale of the civil rights movement in the United States. Without progress in Europe, the War on Terrorism will never be fully won, regardless of whether Iraq becomes a beacon of freedom or not.

This is Europe’s, and more specifically, France’s role in this most important of wars. The near-utopian promise of globalization depends on worldwide integration. If Europe does not integrate a sizable portion of its own society, bin Laden’s global insurgency will ruin the unbelievable potential of the 21st century. If Europe can solve its significant problems, the 21st century will be forever known as the century of freedom and prosperity.

Discard the Race Card

By Andrew Collins

In a post-Katrina United States, it has become increasingly acceptable for journalists, politicians and entertainers to play "the race card.” But some recent racial accusations have spread false information, created tension and obscured the real ways in which racial injustice still exists.

Start with the aftermath of Katrina. Because most of the people stranded in flooded New Orleans were black, journalists started saying that Katrina was “about race.” Left unexplained, such an assertion is a copout. Many journalists deferred any hard analytical thinking or reporting that would explain how Katrina was “about” race and instead burnished their bleeding-heart credentials while illuminating nothing. Was the federal government’s poor reaction about race, or was it about poverty, or some other circumstance? Race may well have been the issue, but we’d never know from these journalists’ lazy pronouncements.

Kanye West's notable remark, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” at least improved upon these journalists by giving a reason why Katrina was “about race.” Unfortunately, his bolder application of the race card was even more misguided. Even if West had any ability to read the President’s heart—which he doesn’t—and even if the President had given any indication that he doesn’t care about black people in particular—which he hasn’t—West would certainly agree that President Bush cares about his legacy and his ability to govern. Both would have been eviscerated if he had deliberately abandoned New Orleans because it had a lot of black people. The very notion is preposterous.

The race baiters continued as Katrina faded from the headlines. Last week, to score political points and make headlines, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) assailed President Bush’s selection of Samuel Alito on the grounds that the resulting Supreme Court would look “less like America and more like an old boys’ club.” Reid was essentially criticizing President Bush for selecting a white male, and that was wrong. A qualified candidate should never be deprived of a position based on his or her race or gender—even if that race is white and the gender is male. Reid, in a cynical effort to build opposition to Alito, picked an attack line that detracts from a substantive case against the nominee. His remark also drew attention to the ironic fact that Reid himself is a white male in the ultimate boys’ club.

Picking up the torch last week, two ESPN.com contributors penned accusatory columns about race and sports. Jason Whitlock called the Trustees of the University of Notre Dame “racist” for signing white football coach Charlie Weis to a contract extension. Why? Because “there’s just no way Notre Dame, or any school for that matter, would do the same thing for a black coach.” Like any argument that relies on “there’s just no way” as a crutch, this one is baseless intuition. It is also inflammatory, destructive and defames the character of Notre Dame’s Trustees—some of whom are black.

Scoop Jackson kept things rolling on ESPN.com with a venomous lambasting of Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who apparently cued a race controversy by talking about hip-hop music and the attending themes of thuggery, prison garb and low attention spans. Scoop Jackson called Phil Jackson racially ignorant, a bigot and even a bitch for his views on “a certain fragment of America’s society that happens to be the color he’s not.” Scoop conflated hip-hop culture with black culture, a dangerous error. Hip-hop is the music of Eminem, Bubba Sparxxx and countless suburban white kids; black is the ethnicity of Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix and Tracy Chapman. Phil Jackson made no reference to race; Scoop did, defeating any point he may have had about the unfairness of the coach’s disdain for hip-hop music and culture.

Racism still exists in America, and it continues to fundamentally damage the integrity of our society. Because of its seriousness, we must never allow the term to become diluted by opportunists and misguided individuals who seek to conceal laziness, spread a myth, score political points or get more prominent placement for a struggling column. The worst part about the above examples of race baiting is that they distract from instances of real racism. When blacks are disenfranchised in Florida, I’m paying attention. When blacks are victims of racial profiling, I’m paying attention. When a racist judge sticks a young black man with an excessive prison sentence, I’m definitely paying attention.

And the minute anyone comes up with a compelling argument why President Bush, Phil Jackson or the Trustees of Notre Dame are racist, I will pay attention. Until then, their accusers would be wise to discard the race card.

A Memo to President Bush

By Anthony Vitarelli

To: President George Walker Bush
From: Anthony Vitarelli, Consultant
Re: Getting This Country Moving Again
Date: November 4, 2005

You have not been having a good month. Certainly some things, such as Hurricane Wilma, the potential avian flu crisis, and the earthquake in Kashmir, were beyond your control, but you could have prevented the others. Your Texas cronyism compelled you to nominate Harriet Miers to the bench. Her lack of qualifications and desire to shield your administration did not impress the United States Senate. Violence continues to explode in Iraq, and the talks have broken down for the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Your administration’s obsession with secrecy precipitated the Libby indictment, and your desire to change the subject resulted in the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. Although a fine jurist, Alito possesses sufficiently conservative views to cause a rancorous Senate confirmation, which will only further distract from the nation’s business.

Despite these shortcomings, you can still right the ship. Often, second-term Presidents facing hurdles at home seek to improve their image through international affairs. As Congress begins to view you as a lame duck, and the next Presidential race begins, difficulties abound in enacting any second-term domestic agenda at all. However, our problems at home are too great to be ignored. I implore you to clean up your administration and confront our domestic challenges directly by 1) appointing a new chief of staff, 2) compromising on personal retirement accounts; and 3) financing hurricane relief through curtailed Congressional earmarks and corporate welfare.

Appoint a New Chief of Staff

Andrew Card just seems burned out. From 1980 to 2000, the tenure of a White House chief of staff has averaged 1.67 years. In contrast, Andrew Card has worked relentlessly for almost four years, making him the longest serving chief of staff since Dwight Eisenhower’s Sherman Adams, who, despite being an unusually strong chief of staff, presided over a much smaller federal government than Card does. Suggestions for Card’s replacement have included political insiders like OMB Director (and your long-time friend) Joshua Bolten and former Commerce Secretary (and your longtime friend) Don Evans.

Your desire for a close political ally to serve as chief of staff is natural but counterproductive. The chief of staff controls all access to the President and serves as the chief operating officer of the US government. He or she must be able to offer you entirely candid, unadulterated information and criticism without fear of harming a long-term friendship. The new chief of staff does not have to be a political outsider, but the best pick will not have worked within your administration. I recommend you start by considering former Defense Secretary and Senator William Cohen, as well as some of President Reagan’s senior advisors currently residing in the private sector.

Compromise on Personal Retirement Accounts to Save Social Security

Much of your 2004 campaign focused on securing the future solvency of Social Security. While your proposal has been declared dead by Congressional leaders and members of your staff, you could revive it by being more flexible about personal retirement accounts. Senate Finance Committee ranking member Max Baucus (D-MT) has commented on the unpopularity of privatized accounts and how this legislation cannot proceed while they are included.

Simply put, Social Security derives its revenues from payroll taxes, and the retirement age determines to whom Social Security pays money. There is currently an enormous deficit, and the US is drawing down rapidly upon the Social Security reserves. Democrats do not want to increase the retirement age, and Republicans do not want to increase taxes. As the President, you can take a bold and rational step by stating openly that you wish to compromise and do both to bridge the gap. Passing this landmark piece of legislation would not only improve your legacy dramatically but also it may compel other components of your agenda if presented in a reasonable, bipartisan manner.

Finance Hurricane Relief by Ending Corporate Welfare

Effective hurricane relief will cost the federal government between $150 and $200 billion. Current proposals strip programs such as Medicaid and food stamps to finance these efforts. You must forcefully demand that those already in need do not suffer more to finance this relief. In 2005 alone, Congress incorporated 13,997 earmarks into appropriations bills, funding their personal pet projects to the tune of $27.3 billion. Moreover, corporate subsidies approach $75 billion annually according to the Cato Institute. If you are truly a compassionate conservative, you must responsibly fund hurricane relief and cut government waste at the same time.

These suggestions may not reverse your current malaise, but they will ideally get the executive branch back in the business of improving this country. Let me know if you have any questions.

Neocons Versus the Realists: Different Threats Require Different Thinking

By Robert Samuel

Something has changed amongst the elites.

Each foreign policy school has seen its principles enacted in a recent administration. The realists saw the merits of their views during George H. W. Bush’s term. Institutionalists and neo-liberals promoted Bill Clinton’s international actions. And the neoconservatives have wielded the most influence in George W. Bush’s decisions.

Observing the mounting casualties and continued chaos in Iraq, the realists increasingly believe that recent history has shown their worldview to be the best for the interests of the United States. And they have not been afraid to let the public know.

In various essays and speeches--such as Lawrence Kaplan’s “Springtime for Realism,” James Dobbins’ op-ed “Bush needs allies near Iraq, however unsavoury,” the recent comments by Bush 41’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and the creation of the bipartisan Coalition for a Realist Foreign Policy--realists vehemently argue that George W. Bush’s foreign policy actions have greatly hurt the interests of the United States.

Realists view international relations as a contest between states. Realism, or realpolitik, is an amoral view of foreign policy, though not necessarily immoral. If an alliance with a rogue state is in the best interests of a nation, the alliance should be made without hesitation. As University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer, today’s premiere realist thinker, describes it, “Realists tend not to draw sharp distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ states, because all great powers act according to the same logic, regardless of their culture, political system, or who runs the government.” In regards to alliances, realists joyously quote Winston Churchill’s analogy for his World War II partnership with the Soviet Union: “If Hitler had invaded hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil.”

The realists achieved their most success during the Cold War. Their strategies were particularly apt for the era, as two superpowers vied to wield their influence throughout the globe.

Despite their success in the past and the obvious troubles of the present, a realist foreign policy may be the worst possible route to take in the War on Terrorism.

The reasons are two-fold.

First, realists believe that states control nearly all actions in international affairs. No conflict better demonstrates the flaw in this thinking than the War on Terror. Though state sponsored terror is a large part of the war, al Qaeda is an amorphous organization that does not need state support to function. Even authoritarian regimes cannot prevent al Qaeda from operating within their borders. Al Qaeda has successfully used its tactics within Saudi Arabia and reportedly in Syria, though there is no credible media to report such attacks in Bashar al-Assad’s nation. If authoritarian Arab regimes are vulnerable to Islamic terrorism, a realist strategy provides little security for the United States. Controlling states will not be very advantageous against a nonstate foe like al Qaeda.

Secondly, the realist policies that disregarded the plight of Arabs throughout the Cold War and the 1990s helped create the conditions that resulted in 9/11. Realists do not care how regimes treat their people. “No people can be the judge of another's domestic institutions and requirements,” stated Cold War realist George Kennan. In the Middle East, the United States followed Kennan’s credo, mostly in the name of cheap oil.

But as 9/11 painfully proved, there is a human cost to realist policies that can greatly harm the United States. Most terrorists are humiliated, educated Muslims from authoritarian nations. With no hope in their home countries, the terrorists looked for an escape in the militant Islamic ideas of Osama bin Laden. A realist foreign policy has no antidote for this unfortunate historical circumstance.

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice were all realists during the Cold War. Just as liberals “mugged by reality” in the 1950s and 60s turned to neoconservative domestic ideas, these realists mugged by the reality of a post-9/11 world have turned to neoconservative foreign policies-a foreign policy that promotes democracy as much as national interest.

Hans Morgenthau, another famous realist thinker, dismissed neoconservatism as “the contemporary phenomenon of the moral crusade.” America, however, needs a moral crusade to roll back the years of disregard for the citizens of the Middle East. This indifference allowed Islamic terrorism to fester until it literally blew up in our faces on 9/11.

It is easy to find flaws with the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terrorism. There have been some poor decisions and some poor efforts at implementation. A move toward realist policies, however, would damage the United States’ chance at success in the War on Terror far more than any mistake Bush has made.

Just as realist ideas were particularly suited for dealing with the challenges of the Cold War, neoconservative principles are the best for diluting the terrorist threat. The Cold War ended when Ronald Reagan implemented a realist foreign policy that included some aspects of neoconservatism. Perhaps the War on Terror will be won with a neoconservative foreign policy with some aspects of realism.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: Liberals in Need of Strategery

By Rob Goodman

As a Democrat, let me be the first to concede that, within the last 24 hours, we have been hosed. We began October with Harriet Miers: she of the Gore ‘88 campaign donations; she of the feminist lecture series; she of the pro-affirmative-action rumblings; she of the “self-determination” for women (wink, poke); she of what can only be described as the Souterian tractability.

We end October with right-wing Sam Alito. “Of course he’s against abortion,” says Sam’s 91-year-old mother. I take her word for it. Hosed.

Alito will be confirmed. As befits a party not in the habit of winning elections, there’s not much we can do about that. And since we can do so little moving forward, let’s look back; let’s first consider exactly how much we’ve lost in the past week. Of all the nominees the Democrats could have hoped to extract from President Bush, Harriet Miers was the best possible. She was an unforced Republican error. A gift. It was incumbent on us to do everything in our (admittedly limited) power to cash in on that gift, and because we failed to do so, we’ll be paying for the rest of Sam Alito’s natural life.

So—into the tape room. What could we have done over the past month to make Harriet Miers’s confirmation even a soupcon more likely? The answer won’t help with our November strategy, but it will clarify some useful truths about our party and our movement.

Mainly, that too few liberals understand pragmatic concepts like “best possible.”

Granted, Miers was conservatives’ fight; our influence was limited. And yet, even on the day that Miers resigned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was privately predicting that she would still squeak through the Senate. Liberals’ influence on conservative opinion could have been the margin of victory.

Liberals’ influence on conservative opinion? Certainly. The main knock on Miers was that she was insufficiently conservative. But it’s been well documented that a dominant factor in a party’s estimation of a nominee’s ideological leanings is—the other party’s estimation. Slate’s perceptive Dahlia Lithwick characterized the entire nomination process as a “They-Must-Know-Something-I-Don’t-Know game in which each side concocts a fully developed sense of the nominee based on nothing more than paranoid readings of the other side’s sense of the nominee.” Liberals’ sense of the nominee (subsequently vindicated) was that she had far more in common with Sandra Day O’Connor than Antonin Scalia.

And so, secure in this knowledge, what did our party’s base do? They made no effort to hide it—they even trumpeted it, bless their guileless little hearts. People for the American Way was largely, and abnormally, quiet. Former NARAL President Kate Michelman was congratulatory: Miers, she said, “recognizes the right of a woman to choose an abortion as a matter of self-determination…. She seems to be a woman who over time is pulled in different directions, as many of us are, as she searched for answers.” Even the Senate Democratic leadership pursued a smug wait-and-see strategy.

Naturally, Republicans assumed the worst and torpedoed Miers. In effect, it was liberals who fueled the conservative backlash. If those same liberals had simply reverted to invective-hurling form for a couple of weeks—the same form they practiced so well and so absurdly on John Roberts—we might have been halfway through the Miers hearings by now.

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber is the only blogger I’ve seen making this point, but he’s dead-on:

Had these [liberal] groups commenced freaking out about, say, the winks and nods given to James Dobson by the White House, or Miers’s support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, this whole story might have shaken out a little differently, and the liberal interest groups might have gotten someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect.

This Scheiber chalks up to the left’s “tactical stupidity.”

But we can go further. Blame this on the left’s sheer constitutional inability to be tactical. Blame this on their love of all things blurted and “authentic.” Blame this on activism-ism. Blame this on the wing of the Democratic Party that’s given us failed Presidential candidate Howard Dean, laughingstock Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, failed antiwar organizer Cindy Sheehan, the failed Texas Air National Guard scandal, Angry Left syndrome, and Moveon.org’s 4-for-26 record of congressional endorsements.

In other words, we Democrats missed out on Justice Miers because we are increasingly a party dominated by activists, not politicians. There’s a difference. The Republicans get it. They’re winning.

Rob Goodman is a 2005 graduate of Duke University and is currently an English teacher in Tucson, Ariz.