Posted by
JDComments on Friday, December 22, 2006 12:48:06 PM
Matthew Continetti of
The Weekly Standard has written what should be the definitive
article detailing the history, causes and ramifications of the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to the use of American military power, and the conclusions, while not surprising, should scare us all.
This piece is lengthy and detailed, filled with statistics and polls as well as historical facts, and well worth the effort of reading because its topic is so important. To really simplify, since the end of the Vietnam War the two parties have drifted further and further apart until today the Republicans are the "Power Party" and the Dems are the "Peace Party", and this demarcation is not confined to the leaders, but rather reflects their respective constituencies.
What this means for policies is:
In November 2005 the MIT Public Opinion Research Lab conducted a more specific survey. The data are revealing. One question asked whether the United States had made a mistake in invading Afghanistan in October 2001. Ninety-four percent of Republicans said the policy of regime change in Afghanistan had not been a mistake. Only 59 percent of Democrats agreed. In the MIT survey, only 4 percent of Democrats thought the war in Iraq had been worth fighting. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support the use of U.S. combat troops, and by greater margins. This was the case when respondents were asked whether they would approve of using U.S. troops to protect oil supplies (10 percent of Democrats said yes versus 41 percent of Republicans), to spread democracy (7 percent versus 53 percent), to destroy a terrorist base (57 percent versus 95 percent), to intervene in a humanitarian disaster such as a genocide or civil war (56 percent versus 61 percent), and to protect American allies under attack (76 percent versus 92 percent). In only one area did more Democrats than Republicans support the use of troops: helping the United Nations "uphold international law" (71 percent versus 36 percent).
In other words, as much as they may claim that their opposition to Iraq is based on the specific facts of that particular action, in reality the Democratic party , other than to support UN missions,
does not feel the US is justified in using its power for any other cause.
This clear and remarkable espousal of a pacificistic philosophy which would emasculate our power and leave us practically no options in dealing with foreign problems is more than frightening; it is horrifying to think that the Party about to take over Congress will never feel that we are justified in using our military. Not to defend the oil without which our country may very well be doomed, not to defend allies, not to destroy terorrists bases, not for anything other than those absurd studies in fantasy called UN missions.
What causes this disparity is just as interesting and upsetting. Per the article:
What lies at the bottom of the great chasm dividing the peace party from the power party? One suspects it is differing attitudes toward American exceptionalism, conflicting opinions on America's goodness and greatness. In 2004 the pollster Scott Rasmussen asked respondents whether America is "generally fair and decent." Eighty-three percent of respondents planning to vote for George W. Bush agreed with that sentiment; only 46 percent of those planning to vote for John Kerry thought so. Rasmussen also asked whether respondents thought the world would be better off if other nations were more like the United States. The data were similar: Eighty-one percent of those planning to vote for Bush thought so; just 48 percent of Kerry voters agreed. When Rasmussen asked the "fair and decent" question again in November 2006, he found similar results.
So where the Republicans are bolstered by their faith in the exceptionalism of America, the Democrat not only do not concede this, but feel we are a bad influence in the world.
Now this should probably not surprise anyone who listens to them, but it does me. Perhaps I am just a patriotic, jingoistic simpleton, but I look at what the US has accomplished in defending and improving the world starting with WWI, through WWI and the Marshall Plan, the Cold War and now the War on Terror and I see a power that could have forced its hegemony on the planet but instead has constrained itself and pursued policies which have cost it dearly while helping others, and I am incensed that anyone would disparage or denigrate us, and yet a large part of this country obviously does.
Where this leaves us is that the polarization so often touted by pundits is not about George Bush, try as they might to make it so. It is about how people view this country, and that being the case I cannot envision a "uniter" who can reconcile these two opposing views of the US and its military. Rather, as the article points out, we seem fated to swing between the embarassed and apologetic impotency of the Democratic Party and the confident and courageous exercise of power in the service of our national interests of the Republican Party.
During a war , the former can only lead to tragedy.