Make Love Sense, Not War

As part of the larger 'weak on terror' GOP narrative playing itself in that ol' liberal media this week, there is also a sub-talking point... that's apparently 1972 all over again and those crazy hippies and their buddy George McGovern are going to send the Democratic party in a downward spiral. Far out, man!

I was planning to go on a long rant about how stupid that narrative is-- although we do have another scandal involving the Republican party and the Watergate hotel-- but I used my rant powers in the previous entry. Instead, I will let others tackle this.

Anonymous Liberal writes that "Voters in 1972 did not have any historical context for understanding what was happening in Vietnam. America had not previously been involved in such a debacle; we had never lost a war... Now people have a very relevant historical analogy to draw upon... [But] there is nothing at the moment even remotely comparable to the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. There are no sit-ins, no demonstrations, no unrest, and no 'dirty hippies' to frighten the masses. In short, there is nothing about the current 'anti-war movement' that seems likely to create a cultural backlash or alienate otherwise like-minded voters."

He adds that "The Democrats have a very different message this time around... the primary argument offered by Democrats critical of the Iraq War is that it has made us less safe, that by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda, we diverted our attention from the real enemy and actually exacerbated the terrorist threat. That's a fundamentally hawkish critique. Indeed, the primary advocates of this view--people like Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark--all have indisputably hawkish records on foreign policy. And yet they are the darlings of the netroots and the 'anti-war movement.'... Moreover, the netroots and Democratic activists don't want pacifist Democrats. They just want Democrats who are right about this war. That's why they love Gore and Dean and Clark."

I think that hits the nail right on the head.

Digby also has a good post on this topic, looking at how much-- to the shock of conservatives and pundits-- the world has changed since that era (they just are a little slower at accepting that change). He does make a good point, going back four years from the talking point narrative to the 1968 election. Both candidates that year ran against the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon won- and handily I might add- because the Democrats were viewed as being largely responsible for what had gone wrong in the war. The GOP now fears that fact- the party responsible for a failed war will pay the price at the ballot. Digby looks at this from Nixon's acceptance speech for the nomination that year-

"And this great group of Americans - the forgotten Americans and others - know that the great question Americans must answer by their votes in November is this: Whether we will continue for four more years the policies of the last five years...

...For four years this administration has had at its disposal the greatest military and economic advantage that one nation has ever had over another in a war in history. For four years America's fighting men have set a record for courage and sacrifice unsurpassed in our history. For four years this Administration has had the support of the loyal opposition for the objective of seeking an honorable end to the struggle.

Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively. And if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past. That is what we offer to America.

And I pledge to you tonight that the first priority foreign policy objective of our next Administration will be to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam. We shall not stop there. We need a policy to prevent more Vietnams. All of America's peacekeeping institutions and all of America's foreign commitments must be reappraisal..."

That same speech could be given by the Democrats this year about Iraq and the GOP would condemn them. How far they've fallen. They could learn a lot from 1968 Nixon instead of 1973 'Tricky Dick' Nixon. Yes, the difference with Nixon was that he intended to stay in a little longer than his opponent, but post-election reality soon blurred that line.

In conclusion, I'll agree with Digby when he states that, "Phantom hippies are the least of our problems. Is it too much to ask that the media not fall for Karl Rove's manufactured spin for just one minute and recognize that this nation's foreign policy is being run by incompetent political hacks and neocon fanatics at a time of maximum danger? It's fun to take these little trips down memory lane and all, but really, we have serious issues to deal with and the current government is doing a terrible job of it. Perhaps we could take our eyes off the rear view mirror for a minute or two and deal with the fleet of mack trucks that are coming right at us."

[Further reading:
-Glenn Greenwald (Salon): Democrats united on Iraq and Lamont
-Mark Schmitt (TPM Cafe): Vietnam Analogies Everywhere!
-Eric Alterman: The Punditocracy vs. History ]