Listening To Liberals

Atrios links to Peter Beinart’s comment in this liberal roundtable in the NY Times in which he says:

I think one of the great problems in the debates about abortion and gay rights is the perception that liberals are illiberal and nondemocratic. It’s remarkable to me how many people still mention the fact that [the anti-abortion Pennsylvania governor] Bob Casey was denied the right to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. That was an illiberal thing the party did. And there is an important debate for liberals to have about the role of the courts in pushing social change. Finally, I don’t think you can separate these questions from people’s larger concerns about the culture. Liberals should believe in free speech, of course, but there is no reason that liberals need to believe that everything that comes out of an unregulated free market is good culturally.

Atrios rightly points out that Beinert is helpfully pushing Republican talking points here, as so many Democrats do, and specifically corrects the record as to Casey, who was not allowed to speak because he refused to endorse the Democratic ticket, not because he was anti-choice.

And here is one liberal who doesn’t believe that everything that comes out of the unregulated free market is good culturally. For instance, I think that right wing talk radio is the biggest cultural pollutant in our society. I can’t conceive of anything more pernicious than hours and hours of eliminationist rhetoric, lies and propaganda being pumped into people’s cars, offices and homes throughout the country. Somehow, I just can’t get as worked up about fictional cable television shows that feature nudity and profanity when real live Americans spend the day listening to people talk about me in ways that sound an awful lot like they’d like to kill me.

Now, I would imagine that “conservatives” would scream bloody murder if I were to suggest that these voices be silenced. And I wouldn’t suggest it. But if Beinert asks me if I think that there are culturally dangerous examples of free speech going on today, I’d have to say I think Limbaugh and Savage will take this country down a helluva lot faster than some obscure college professor, MTV or Janet Jackson’s nipple.

Sadly, Beinert wasn’t the only liberal in this conversation who sounds like the right wing noise machine has replaced a part of his brain. Michael Tomasky is parroting right wing talking points, too:

TOMASKY. First, terrorism is a threat. It threatened our shores more directly than the Soviet Union ever did. And it must be the focus of a foreign policy. We need alliances, yes. But alliances are a means. The end is the isolation of terrorists and the states that harbor them. The end is the control of nuclear proliferation, an extremely serious issue that the Bush administration sort of ignores. And the end is bringing liberty to the places of the world where it doesn’t exist.

Yes, terrorism is a threat. But if blowing up a couple of buildings is more threatening than aiming thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons at every citizen of the United States and then waiting decades for someone to blink, then my sense of existential danger is sadly confused.

Here’s the scenario under which we lived for more than 40 years:

The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate into MAD was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its NATO allies because it was believed until the 1970s that a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of escalating to theater nuclear weapons.

A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate which led to the concept of counter-city strikes — attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy’s will to fight, although it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population. During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, little to no preparations were made for civilians at all, except for the occasional backyard fallout shelter built by private individuals. This was part of a deliberate strategy on the Americans’ part that stressed the difference between first and second strike strategies. By leaving their population largely exposed, this gave the impression that the US had no intention of launching a first strike nuclear war, as their cities would clearly be decimated in the retaliation.

The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. This was intended to reinforce the second strike pose. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy’s silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.

This strategy had one major and very possibly critical flaw, soon realised by military analysts but highly underplayed by the US military: Conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were considered to be outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and while the western countries invested heavily in high-tech conventional weapons to counter this (partly perceived) imbalance, it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly perceived as the ‘red tanks rolling towards the North Sea’ scenario) that NATO, in the face of conventional defeat, would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would become almost inevitable.

So, while official US policy was a clearly stated ‘non first-use policy’, never to strike first with nuclear weapons, the reality was that the lack of strength of conventional NATO forces would force the US to either abandon Western Europe or use nuclear weapons in its defense. Even though after Soviet collapse investigations by historians and military analysts revealed that the effectiveness of Warsaw Pact forces was rated far higher than they really were, official NATO doctrine had been critically flawed from the onset and global thermonuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred.

I guess because we all went about our lives and lived as if the threat didn’t exist that it wasn’t a direct threat. Or something. But all it would have taken was one miscalculation — and it almost happened in 1962. The threat was clear and we managed, through a foreign policy that was realistic and vigilant, to get through it and come out victorious. Part of what kept us from blowing ourselves and half the planet up was that we didn’t listen to crazy people on the subject who insisted that we invade Russia, many of whom are now in charge of American foreign policy.

Liberals are in a bind on this, as we always are, because unless we strike the proper pose of panicked bellicosity we are called treasonous and cowardly. And to be fair, Tomasky does hold the threat of nuclear proliferation as the number one threat, which is correct. However, I still think it behooves liberals to be precise in our language and not enable the other side with loose talk about what kind of threat we are facing with “terrorism” and Islamic fundamentalism. It may be that this country gets off on the idea that we are under seige by some Satanic force, but somebody’s got to keep their heads.

(And if we all now have to pay lip service to Bush’s little fantasy that the US is “bringing freedom” all around the world — well, to the oil producing world anyway — then I give up. It’s bad enough having to listen to sanctimonious Republican phonies pretend to be morally superior, but if everyone now has to fall over themselves to proclaim that the United States is on a worldwide freedom crusade then we have truly entered the twilight zone.)

Finally, I don’t know why we should listen to anyone who says something like this:

BEINART. I think that the base needs to be engaged, absolutely, and I certainly think that Washington and Washington political consultants should not be the only people who set the direction for the party. But I also think it’s important to remember the base was enormously engaged in this election. The Democratic Party still lost. The party has to have a listening tour within its own base but also a listening tour among swing constituencies that are moving away: Hispanics, Jews, the military in particular. The Democratic Party needs a strategy with military voters not simply because of their numbers, but because military voters will give the Democratic Party credibility with nonmilitary voters who are concerned the Democratic Party is not tough enough. One cannot forget the central fact that the Democratic Party has lost every election since the 9/11 era, in which national security has been predominant. That is an enormous, enormous problem.

Sigh. 9/11 happened in 2001. We had a midterm election in 2002 in which the senate would have remained in Democratic hands if 100,000 votes had moved the other way. The president, who was hailed as a conquering hero throughout the country, at that time stood at a 70+ approval rating and campaigned vigorously. In 2004 that president won by 60,001 votes in a state that hasn’t voted Democratic in decades. This has all happened in a period of 3 short years after the country was attacked and we have launched two wars. The Republican party, long seen as the party of national security, came extremely close to losing.

It’s a fucking miracle we weren’t creamed and it’s a testament to the tenacity of the base of the Democratic Party which valiantly resisted the temptation to join in the the war party. George W. Bush barely won the last election (outside his base in the South it was nip and tuck) and it was largely a result of the natural advantage of GOP incumbency during wartime that got him under the wire.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Democrats have a lot of work to do, but we are most definitely not in the wilderness. “Reaching out” to military families and swing voters is a very nice idea and I think we should do it. But it is sheer naivete to think that doing so will balance the effect of Rush Limbaugh and his pals on the psyche of those who are inclined to listen and absorb his message. We are in a period of hand to hand political combat now, up close and personal, and the key is the willingness of Democrats to articulate their vision clearly and without apology and to fight like hell when the other side goes after us.

Beinert and the DLC boys are anachronisms. They continue to believe that we are out of step with the country, as we all thought was true back in the 80’s when we were losing big. But times have changed. The truth is that we are out of step with half the country.

But that means the Republicans are too.

Correction: Clinton won Ohio in both 92 and 96. It’s probably worth noting, however, that Perot got 21% in Ohio in 1992 and almost 11% in 1996.

.