In a recent Washington Post article, I argued that Democrats gradually have been moving away from "McGovernism" and back toward the
tough-minded internationalism of John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman. This
provoked a spirited riposte from George McGovern himself -- a blast
from the past that sheds light on Democrats' present struggles to forge
a unified and coherent stance on national security.
The episode also triggered a flashback to 1972, when I watched the Democratic
presidential nominating race unfold through the hilariously twisted lens
of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. I wound up casting my first presidential
ballot, with scant enthusiasm, for McGovern. If impossibly idealistic,
he was at least a decent and honorable man, and nothing could have induced
me to back Tricky Dick and his crew of close-cropped henchpersons.
Yet there's no denying that McGovern's successful nomination bid signaled
the party's takeover by the "New Politics" left, and that Democrats
have been paying a stiff political price ever since. The schism over Vietnam
was particularly damaging, as principled opposition to the war morphed
all too easily into pacifism or worse -- a rancid anti-Americanism that
repelled key Democratic constituencies like white Southerners and blue-collar
workers.
The public began to view Democrats as vaguely unpatriotic and weak on
defense -- perceptions that linger to this day and manifest themselves
in huge Republican advantages on matters of national strength and resolve.
So the contretemps with McGovern is hardly a debate over ancient history.
At a time when protecting Americans from external enemies is back at the
center of our politics, where Democrats stand on war and peace could become
the pivotal question of the 2004 presidential election.
McGovern protests that he's no isolationist, but that's not what I mean
by McGovernism. The important divide among Democrats is between two versions
of internationalism. One is the soft multilateralism of the activist left,
which is leery of military force and seeks international consensus for
its own sake. The other is the muscular internationalism of centrists
who see American power as a liberalizing and progressive force in world
affairs.
Hewing the former line, McGovern says, "An internationalist would
also support the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the International Criminal
Court (ICC), the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and an international
ban on land mines."
Maybe, but the Kyoto treaty, which would force the United States to make
unrealistically deep cuts in carbon emissions, couldn't even pass a Democratic
Senate. Banning land mines sounds noble, but what if it leaves U.S. and
South Korean forces more vulnerable to an attack by North Korea's mercurial
regime? The 1972 ABM treaty became a strategic anachronism the day the
Evil Empire collapsed and the nuclear arms race ended. The ICC is a closer
call, but the point is that being an internationalist doesn't mean you're
obliged to swallow pacts that put disproportionate burdens on America.
More important, McGovern's internationalist agenda avoids knotty questions
of collective security. Who's going to keep the peace, stop ethnic cleansings
and genocide, and confront rogue regimes bent on aggression and proliferation?
To say the answer is the United Nations rather than the United States
is to pose a phony choice, because the United Nations won't work without
the leadership of the world's strongest power.
The party divide shows up in today's nomination contest. On one side
are anti-war candidates Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, whose arguments
echo those of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. On the other are Joe
Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards, who, like Britain's
Tony Blair, backed using force against Iraq on the condition that President
Bush challenge the United Nations to do its job. While scathingly critical
of Bush's botched Iraq diplomacy, once an impasse was reached in the U.N.
Security Council, they did not flinch from going to war with a smaller
coalition.
This enraged "peace activists," who passionately and sincerely
believe they speak for most Democrats. They are passionately and sincerely
wrong: McGovernism is a distinctly minority view in the party, held mainly
by left-leaning activists who have disproportionate influence in caucus
states like Iowa. Polls show that two-thirds of Democrats (and more than
three-fourths of all Americans) approve of the second Persian Gulf War.
And lest we forget, McGovern himself suffered the worst landslide defeat
in U.S. history, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia
and winning only 38 percent of the national vote against Richard Nixon.
To win next year, Democrats need to return to their real national security
tradition -- one that's tough enough to keep Americans safe and smart
enough to build alliances and institutions that make the world safer for
democracy.
Blueprint Keywords: Extra Five Myths
