Democratic Fear Mongering
One of the lamest lines going from Democrats since 2002 was that the GOP was somehow doing something underhanded or illegitimate when they ran on the message that electing Democrats would endanger America. The thing is, Americans care about national security, so if one party is continually hammering home the idea that the other party means more terrorist attacks, they’re gonna win. Ilan Goldenberg says that Democrats should so some fear mongering of their own, and point out that conservative foreign policy more broadly is nothing more than imprudent militarism that has made us no more safe:
However, what Democrats can begin doing is solidly reinforcing the frame that Republicans are too militant, dangerous and quite frankly a bit nuts. That’s because the incredible incompetence and militancy of the Bush Administration has made this story very believable for the public. Because of this vulnerability, all the fear mongering on Iran and Islamofascism can be turned against the Republicans. Democratic fear mongering needs to focus on how scary it would be to have another Republican President and how much that could endanger all of us (Especially if the nominee is Giuliani). Republicans spent years cultivating the frame that Democrats are weak and it was just as important to their dominance of the issue as their own ability to seem competent and tough.
This is all very true. I’m so tired of hearing how bad it was that the GOP ran ads in 2002 implying that Senator Max Cleland was functionally pro Al Qaeda and pro Saddam. Where are our ads making the argument that Dick Cheney and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are essentially allied in raising the stakes in Iran, or explaining that the war in Iraq, and Bush more broadly, has been the best recruiting tool or Al Qaeda? We Democrats surely believe that Republican foreign policy is bad for the national security of our country, so why don’t we make that argument in very, very strong terms?
There’s a tendency in the netroots and in some liberal quarters to underplay the threat of terrorism. And while analytically they have a pretty strong case, in the realm of electoral politics, John Mueller’s argument isn’t going to win any votes. By saying that under a Giuiliani presidency we’ll foolishly strike Iran thus increasing their support for terrorism and accelerating their nuclear development, continue our war in Iraq, thus further ignoring Al Qaeda not-in-Iraq (i.e. in Pakistan), drain international support for our foreign policy and invite a whole host of other disastrous outcomes, we will be able to finallly take back any Republican advantage on national security.
Goldenberg mentions the infamous Daisy Ad, which Johnson ran in 1964, showing a little girl plucking the petals off a daisy only to be incinerated in a nuclear explosion due to (presumably) Goldwater’s policy of increased confrontation with the USSR. I pray that Clinton or Obama will be running similar ads.
There are several problems with what you’re arguing, but probably the biggest practical issue is that people tend to become more conservative the more threatened they feel. They aren’t called “reactionaries” for nothin’.
In the case of the Daisy Ad, for instance, it seems unlikely that would work out well in the present context. The USSR was a massive threat. It wasn’t overstating the case to suggest that a misstep in the Cold War could lead to a nuclear Armageddon-type scenario. As a result, the policies both parties offered looked like what one might expect in a potential doomsday situation.
Dealing properly with the threat of terrorism requires mostly recognizing that it isn’t a tremendous threat. It requires dealing with our problems through a mixture of economic programs, diplomatic outreach, and international law enforcement. In short, the action would in no way live up to the rhetoric. Democrats aren’t going to prosecute “the war on terror” like it’s World War III, so they shouldn’t build it up to look like it is World War III. That only makes them look like they don’t have a good solution to the problem.
In fact it sets up Republicans perfectly. The correct response to World War III, after all, at least intuitively, is to start kickin’ ass in a big way. Maybe toss around some nukes of our own. Conservatives are up for that! So they’ll go along with the nuclear holocaust narrative, or whatever, and then promise to blow everything in sight to hell if we elect them. The voters, trembling and as a result more likely to react as conservatives anyway, will vote accordingly.
Now I’ll agree that bitching every time the Republicans pull out the “you’re bad for national security” argument is ridiculous — the Republicans presumably actually believe as much, and as such it’s not only effective but moral for them to say it — but the response isn’t to try to scare Americans even more. That just won’t work.
Mike Meginnis
November 3, 2007 at 1:27 pm
[...] Young Zeitlin writes: I’m so tired of hearing how bad it was that the GOP ran ads in 2002 implying that Senator Max Cleland was functionally pro Al Qaeda and pro Saddam. Where are our ads making the argument that Dick Cheney and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are essentially allied in raising the stakes in Iran, or explaining that the war in Iraq, and Bush more broadly, has been the best recruiting tool or Al Qaeda? We Democrats surely believe that Republican foreign policy is bad for the national security of our country, so why don’t we make that argument in very, very strong terms? [...]
Ways to End the World » Blog Archive » Why fear-mongering only works for conservatives.
November 3, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“We Democrats surely believe that Republican foreign policy is bad for the national security of our country, so why don’t we make that argument in very, very strong terms?”
I think there is some room for attacking the Republicans for being being reckless on foreign policy, but any successful foreign policy strategy would also include vigorously defending the credentials of people like Max Cleland.
What the GOP did was underhanded and illegitimate. Where I think Democrats went astray was expecting either the Republicans to show self restraint or the media to play a watch dog function. Neither of those things were going happen.
christophercolaninno
November 3, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[...] Oh yeah, I totally disown this post. [...]
Orlando Patterson and the 3am Ad « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
March 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm