McCain is Not Sharon- Or is The US Israelized
Sorry Andrew, I don’t buy it or maybe I should just cite the Zasloff and the graph you cited.
“One of the brewing themes through Blue Blogistan is MSM’s casual assumption that the Democratic Party is too far left to be trusted on national security. This outrages folks like Atrios, who point out that most Americans want out of the Iraq war and are trusted more on that issue than the Republicans. The Moose generally retorts that the Democrats can never win unless the public trusts them to wage the war on terror: the left’s position on Vietnam consigned the Democrats to a lack of credibility on national security. And on and on.
At the risk of winning Wanker of the Day, I’d like to suggest that they are both right: essentially, US national security politics has become Israelized.
That phrase refers to the old saw about what the Israeli electorate wants from its government: a Labor policy carried out by Likud. Israeli voters recognized that Labor was right; that holding onto the territories was (and is) madness (both for strategic and moral reasons), and that ruling over millions of Arabs was not in Israel’s interest. But they never trusted Labor to actually do it properly without exposing the public to violence. That had much to do with Labor’s rhetoric than anything else. The one exception to this was Yitzhak Rabin, whose gruff manner and record gave him the title of “Mr. Security”. (As Labor leader, he never lost an election).
The same thing has happened to the Democrats. The public recognizes that the Democratic approach on Iraq is correct, and that we are going to have get out soon. But they don’t trust Democratic instincts on national security. They would prefer someone who is too willing to use military force to someone who is not willing enough. In short, they might not like George W. Bush, but they would rather have him than Jimmy Carter (who is the real culprit behind the Democratic image, not the Vietnam policy).”
“The public recognizes that the Democratic approach on Iraq is correct, and that we are going to have get out soon.“
One of the reasons that I don’t buy this is because this is far too simplistic. Get out soon and then what. What the hell happens after that. Do we just pretend that nothing ever happened. Lack of coherent thought and policy kill people.
Leaf May 30, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Very interesting topic. The one big difference to me is that the American political scene is not full of ex-war heroes like the Israeli one. Most of the supposedly hard on terror Pubs have no idea about actual warfare. I believe some people call them Chicken Hawks. Without getting too political on here I wonder how well the Democrats could really handle any power, they seem to be a very dysfunctional bunch right now. I guess we will see soon enough since there seems to be a huge push nationality that is anti-incumbent.
Jack's Shack May 30, 2006 at 6:15 am
Jim,
Life is full of shades of grey.
jim May 30, 2006 at 5:05 am
Very interesting Jack. Especially the part about the Demo image problem tracing to Carter instead of VN. That is right I think.
What I hear in my street is pro War, pro Bush, pro Republican, and the basis of these positions is the ‘economy’, prosperity, money flow. I don’t see it, no money flow here, except upwards.
If the war ended, chaos reigns, a worse than the former dictator, is likely to arise, along with the death of all who were pro American.
Maybe the near future is no change at all. Bush the Third comes in and extends the Second. The Christians are all pro that, on my street.
I was pro Labor in Israel, but had to side with Sharon. Confusing to me sometimes, but I thought and think that his policy would nail the Palestinian to themselves, force their definition and enable dealing with them more strongly.
But I am no expert. Israel, on my street is a dangerous word, say it too loud, jepordize support, but, don’t say it loud, oblivion, forgotten, shrugged off. Suspicion in every direction regarding the Jew.