Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Pushing 'Moderate' Democrats to the Right

By Ari Berman, The Nation. Posted August 19, 2005.


Behind Capitol Hill's Democratic war hawks like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton stands a 'strategic class' of political and media enablers.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ari Berman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

The continued high standing of the hawks has been made possible by their enablers in the strategic class -- the foreign policy advisers, think-tank specialists and pundits. Their presumed expertise gives the strategic class a unique license to speak for the party on national security issues. This group has always been quietly influential, but since 9/11 it has risen in prominence, egging on and underpinning elected officials, crowding out dissenters within its own ranks and becoming increasingly ideologically monolithic. So far its members remain unchallenged. It's more than a little ironic that the people who got Iraq so wrong continue to tell the Democrats how to get it right.

The Structure of the Strategic Pyramid

It's helpful to think of the Democratic strategic class as a pyramid. At the top are politicians like Biden and Clinton, forming the most important and visible public face. Just below are high-ranking former government officials, like UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin. These are the people who devise and execute foreign policy and frame the substance of the message. Virtually all the top advisers supported the Iraq War; Holbrooke, who's been dubbed the "closest thing the party has to a Kissinger" by one foreign policy analyst, even tacked to Bush's right, arguing in February 2003 that anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law.

Many of the officials held high-ranking positions in the Kerry campaign. Holbrooke, frequently mentioned as a potential Secretary of State, urged Kerry to keep his vision on Iraq "deliberately vague," the New York Observer reported. Rubin appeared on television sixty times in May 2004 alone. Nine days before the election, Holbrooke addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and reiterated Kerry's support for the war and occupation, belittled European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program and endorsed the Israeli separation wall. "Hardly a Dove Among Dems' Brain Trusters," read a headline from the Forward newspaper.

Underneath the top policy officials are the anointed regional experts, who play an instrumental role in legitimizing the politicians' arguments and drumming up support inside the Beltway for impending conflicts in faraway lands. Brookings fellow and former CIA official Kenneth Pollack's book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq played precisely that function for wavering Democratic elites in the run-up to war, turning "more doves into hawks than Richard Perle, Laurie Mylroie and George W. Bush combined," wrote Slate's Chris Suellentrop in March 2003. "In Washington, it's not uncommon to hear fence-straddlers qualify their ambivalence about an Iraq war with the sentiment, 'Of course, I haven't read the Pollack book yet.'"

The likes of Pollack are greatly bolstered by a second front of national security specialists at prestigious think tanks like Brookings, the Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for American Progress. Though they often toil in obscurity, the think-tank officials form a necessary echo chamber for the political class, appearing on television and writing issue briefs while providing, through their organizations, a platform on which candidates can appear "robust" in the national security realm.


Digg!

Ari Berman writes The Nation's "Daily Outrage" weblog. He is a Ralph Shikes Fellow at the Public Concern Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
DISMANTLE THE DEMOCRATS AND REPLACE THEM WITH LIBERALS
Posted by: LMNOP on Aug 19, 2005 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following post is a minimally reworked opinion condemning the Democratic Party for its incompetence and negligence that I submitted a few days ago to Alternet in response to the Democrats attempting to co-opt the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon for their own political advantage but not Cindy's or ours. It applies here as well:

That party [the Democrats] has abandoned America and its liberal and progressive heritage. It stands for nothing, certainly not me. I resent them for letting the conservatives establish unanswered such its vast infrastructure that now enables it to effective disregard liberal Americans.

The Democrats should have been screaming from the rooftops when the Fairness Doctrine (equal time) was gutted. They should have been there with counter measures the day Rush Limbaugh went on the air. They should have fought consolidation of the media loudly and like pit bulls. Instead, they let this go on silently for over twenty years.

They should have been forming their own networks of contributors, think tanks and policy organizations for twenty years to counter the conservatives. They slept while the enemy worked diligently to dismantle the America that was built for its citizens and reconstruct in its place an icon that serves corporate masters instead. That's a dereliction of duty, and I fear that we will never recover from their falling asleep on the job.

We should reject these self-serving incompetents and run them off ourselves to make room for the nascent respectable liberal infrastructure to coalesce and lead the charge. The best people from organizations like Media Matters, MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Alternet, Online Journal, the ACLU and others that are competent and trustworthy could create a vehicle, a new liberal party, to represent and promote our legitimate liberal concerns and ensure us a place at the table once again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still two parties...?
Posted by: bgentry on Aug 19, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding evidence that the Democratic party leadership sound more like Republicans, check out David MacGowan's book "Understanding the F-Word." He presents a good case for a virtual merger of both parties at the highest levels; they just appear separate to perpetuate the illusion of a two-party system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Basically we now have two Nazi parties
Posted by: sausage on Aug 19, 2005 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Nasty" Nazis, or Republican Party, and the "Nice" Nazis, or Democratic Party.

I used to think there was some modicum of difference but, as we've seen over the years, both are corporationist in philosophy, placing the interests of the nation's largest corporations over all other considerations. Both parties have been instrumental in skewing the tax code to the great benefit of the "majority stockholder" class and propping up the military/industrial complex, a segment of the economy that is a drain, a liability, rather than an asset.

The only difference is that the "Nice" Nazis throw a few crumbs the way of the "lower" classes, labor unions and minority folks, and show some concern for the environment. The "Nasty" Nazis don't.

If the only political alternative for governing this nation is between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, we are screwed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sham opposition
Posted by: roygib on Aug 19, 2005 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish I could take credit for this analogy but I found it somewhere on the web so long ago I can't remember where now. The Democrats have become the Washington Generals.
You know the Generals don't you, they are the team that travels with the Harlem Globetrotters to give them someone to display their tricks against.
The Democrats have become a shadow party, a sham opposition whose only role is to make it appear that we actually have a democracy.
I have grown so tired of liberals complaining about the Dems, and then going ahead and supporting them anyway. Truely liberal parties like the Greens exist, but most progressive voters just meekly tow the line "well, the Greens don't really have a chance, they'll never be strong enough, etc. Well duh, as long as every liberal in the country is afraid to be green because they aren't big enough, I mean has anyone read Catch 22?
I held my nose tightly and voted for Kerry in this last election because Bush scared the hell out of me, as I'm sure many other liberals did, but no more. If the Dems continue to put up these wimpy, feckless losers the Republicans can cake walk to victory everytime anyway, so they can no longer scare me with the Republican boogey man.
It's time for progressive voters to quit taking all this crap from the Dems and yell out loud and clear "you have taken us for granted and ignored our concerns for too long, we are voting for real liberals only from now on."
Come on liberal voters, you have nothing to lose, and though it will take time, it is possible to build a third party that will actually give us a voice. Isn't that better than continually enabling a party that constantly kicks you in the face?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sham opposition Posted by: outsidea
Hey, WAKE UP!!!! Its even worse than what you are saying here about the Dems!
Posted by: Pepper on Aug 19, 2005 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND IT CAN'T BE FIXED. Its out of control. Without a revolution, which no one wants since it requires violence, then there will be no changes. Here is what will work!

BOYCOTT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM! Don't vote, don't payinto the system, don't get a drivers license, don't register your cars, don't do bank accounts under your own names, rather form corporations or LLC's. Use the laws that support the corporatism that is now prevalent and do what they do and drop out completely. If you get rfid tags on your merchandise then microwave them, if you have to give out your social security number, give them Richard Nixons.

But you can't think outside the box if your afraid to ACT outside the box. If anything they ask you to do violates your Constitutional rights and you do it, then its a waiver of that right you can never take back. However, if you refuse because you clearly state you won't waive your rights, then ask them in writing for the rejection based on that refusal so you have something for a class action suit.

I am just giving suggestions here, but you get the idea. Its time to really HIT THEM HARD AND TELL THEM WE ARE NOT PLAYING ANYMORE. THIS CORRUPTED SYSTEM CAN ONLY WORK IF WE COOPERATE. LETS NOT COOPERATE. BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT. Hell, buy a motorcycle instead of a car or a mountain bike, use the car only in winter.

Get a wood burning stove and shut off yournatural gas or electric heat. See how long they will be happy campers when you start costing them their obscene and illegally obtained profits. Eat organic, buy herbs, boycott drug companies, use natural remedies. I mean, hey come on, there is plenty you can do to fight this system without firing a shot. Lets get some balls here and stand up instead of just talking. I am doiong all of the above and I feel free again.

Heck, I even make them empty my grocery cart like they used to instead of giving them free labor. LOL Remember our reps reflect us and our attitudes. If you don't stand up as I suggested, then you are the problem and not your reps.

I bet they are afraid because they think you won't stand behind them if they do. We have seen that happen already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other way
Posted by: jazzyjer on Aug 19, 2005 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of just denouncing the Democrats as corrupt, progrerssives instead can take over the party. It starts at the precinct level: Run for the county executiive committee, recruit candidates for the state leg and Congress. Scan your hometown for businesses that seem progressive and scope them out as future donors. Work to form coalitions around local issues (school bond issues, for example) where new supporters can be found and drawn in by talking about the "American values" Democrats once believed in, like equality, privacy, help for the helpless, education for all, health care.

It's easy to rant. Why don't we do something about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The other way Posted by: nakis
» RE: The other way Posted by: TexasJewGirl
Time for Action
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 19, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the majority here, I'm disgusted with the wishy-washy Democratic party leadership. I don't like the Republican agenda, but Republican leaders must be admired for their unrelenting push to accomplish it. They want to undo the 20th century and bit by bit they are doing it. I think the answer is not to abandon the Democratic party; but to take it back. The way to take it back is to take back our government. Most of the posters on this board, along with the writers, know that our government is run by unelected campaign contributors. In a government run by unelected "special interests" elections are meaningless. The only way for people to have "government of the people, for the people and by the people" is to have campaigns totally financed by the taxpayers. For a suggested plan visit my website. Comments and suggested improvements are welcomed.
lincolninitiative.org
We the people have the clout,
To vote the politicians out,
We'd still be ruled by sleazy "smarties",
Who pay money to both parties,
Here's the truth, without a doubt,
You can't vote those rascals out !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, Hillary bobbed her head...
Posted by: helenwheels on Aug 19, 2005 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the insane "Let The Eagle Soar," written (and thank goodness not performed this time) by none other than that absolute nutjob, Ashcroft, at dubya's in-augh!-uration. Now she's teamed up with New Gingrich. Hmmmm.... can someone say, "collusion"?

They have done zip for gay rights, except to maybe damage them further, which Bill Clinton first injured with the Defense of Marriage Act. They didn't stick up for gay people during the presidential race, they let the republicans make it an issue and didn't say a word in the gay population's defense. Simply despicable. It's sickening.

Yeah, we need another party. The dems are no longer really democratic at all, save a few good souls here and there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First Gulf War
Posted by: LoisC on Aug 19, 2005 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE DECIDED IT WAS WORTH THE COST

Asked in 1996 whether this was not mass murder, Madeleine Albright, then ambassador to the United Nations and soon to be U.S. secretary of state, did not contest the fact that it was mass murder; neither did she dispute the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died directly as a result of this carefully thought-out American stratagem to cower the Iraqi population into submission by killing their children. Instead, she stated ON NATIONAL TELEVISION that "WE" (i.e., the American people) had decided it was "WORTH THE COST."

"We had decided that it was worth the cost?" Is that what she said? - that WE had decided that bringing Iraq to its knees was worth the cost of 500,000 Iraqi children? My heavens! - and there wasn't so much as a murmur of protest in the American press or anywhere else for that matter - except maybe some lonely voices on the Left? Is that what happened? - the Left spoke out, and the church remained silent. What kind of testimony is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: First Gulf War Posted by: nakis
'Go to war' is the primary plank, though unspoken, of the Repug's platform
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 19, 2005 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We hear a lot about how the GOP does what they say they will do. B.S.!

They never mention that they believe in keeping the nation at war. Yet IKE had Korea and the Cold War. Nixon had Viet Nam. Reagan had Grenada and Nicaragua. Bush I had the Gulf War. Now Bush II went back to where daddy left off. Yes, some of those wars were inherited, and they were prolonged far beyond necessity.

Why? Because the American people will stand with their leadership in time of war. It's a hangover from the last 'good' war. It's the unmentioned basis of GOP solidarity and voter support. It is also the lowest, sickest form of politics.

Opposition to war has to fight that Devil on its own territory. To suggest, as this editorial does, that one should look for elected officials to honestly and openly propose withdrawal conforms to GOP hopes, because it's a losing strategy.

Instead, bring the war home to the people, as Cindy Sheehan has done. Raise taxes. Institute a draft. In other words, do all that we have always done, until now, to unify a nation at war. The Demo mistake has been to let the GOP put the full burden on reservists, postpone the costs until the next generation, and hide the body bags. It's cowardly.

In addition, if the press won't show them, Gold Star Mothers need to gather in city squares regularly, at least once a week, with photos of their lost loved ones. If the Demos will enlist the American people, once we begin to feel the cost, we will have a massive anti-war movement again.

Politics like war is all about winning. That's what the GOP knows. Such ruthlessness is despicable. But wishing things were better is just blowing smoke rings. Strategy, strategy, strategy! Listen to Biden. He may look like a hawk, but he's really a coyote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Upon reflection... Posted by: Sojourner
Expos
Posted by: expos on Aug 19, 2005 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either have liberals/progressives take over the Democratic Party or begin a third party. If you're going to lose anyway, then better to go down swinging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Queenies Sheenies
Posted by: pjrsullivan on Aug 19, 2005 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When America embraces the genocidal cannibal policies of Londons Lousiest louts, and feeds us a continuous diet of the Sheenies and there Shit, one can only hope for a rapid awakening of the mass of the population to what sort of enemies the Republicrats really are.

Wake up folks; this lousy no good bunch of God Damned mass murderes and war criminals have about 2 months left until either they or us are finished.

Instead of asking if we and they have wronged the people of Iraq, if you can grasp the fact that they have repeatedly attempted to launch nuclear weapons upon you and your family, ask yourself have they wronged you!

This gang of neighbor murdering Sheenies fled Europe one step ahead of the rope, and they plan to do the same things to and your family here, that they have historically done "Over there."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zimbabwe Coming To America
Posted by: Riverside on Aug 21, 2005 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most folks shudder at the scraping away of the homes of the poor and powerless in Zimbabwe. We call their President Mugabe a tyrant. Well wake up, with the changes made to the Law of Imminent Domain in this nation, the Zimbabwe De-Housing Plan could happen here. This is just one more assault on our Constitutional rights and the transforming of this nation into a mixed theocracy/oligarchy. If you are not rich, a Republican and an extreme rightist Christian you are in deep yogurt. We need to wake up to what is happening to us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is Next?
Posted by: davidt on Aug 21, 2005 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that we have identified the entrenched corporate idiots on both sides of the aisle we have to seek out and support the independent politicians that have the courage to spurn the campaign strategies that promise an independent streak but when it comes time to vote against their corporate donor class and their unconscionable pursuit of profits those same pols cave.

These prostitutes come in both genders and all races--no pun intended.

I think the best way to decide who to support is to find out how they vote on the issues that matter to you and find out who is financing their campaigns. Also, check the statements that they make for accuracy.

This will not be publicized except when that revelation will suit an agenda enough for a special-interest group to force the Four Stooge Media to make it public.

The places were you can find out these voting records are tompaine.com, vote-smart.org, senate.gov/clerk or house.gov/clerk.

If you know someone who would benefit from this information but they do not have internet access simply call 1-800-868-3762 and ask for the Voter's Self-Defense Manual. It is FREE to every American citizen!

It will tell you how every member of the Senate, House voted or DID NOT vote on pertinent issues during the year.

These folks offer two-week internships at their HQ in...Montana and are financed by private donations. They do not favor one party over the other. They give you documented information. Period!

You can access political money at opensecrets.org. They go after the money behind all politicians with equal fervor. The Center for Public Integrity is also an excellent site run by Charles Lewis, a former member of the Four Stooge Media.

Find out the accuracy of what politicians are saying at the podia at factcheck.org.

Find out how your favorites voted on the Bankruptcy Bill, Energy Bill, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, The Taxcut Packages and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

You might find a few surprises...then notice who is running in 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we have two of what
Posted by: john henry on Aug 21, 2005 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the two partys are the same there are for corp. not the little people or the tax payer for we do not ask any question on what there are doing for us there is a time for a killing war not a talking one so our young people get killed for money people a killing war is go in an kill everthing that has a gun or bomb or theated our people there or here go do the job an get out an let the people of that country set there gov. up how ever they what to an tell them to be nice for next time we come back everthing going to be going for ever an keep there out of country groups in line or we will be back

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abolish political parties
Posted by: RayP on Aug 23, 2005 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of choosing sides, we should be individuals, and vote on what is our views. Therefore, we should not be forced into thinking the way that a particular "side" thinks.

This is why I think political parties should be abolished, and those who run for office run only as individuals, with their own agenda. True, there will be many who agree with them, and many who will not, but it would curb the mess that we are in today - the country being divided as much as it has since the Civil War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]