The Neocon Dinosaur Vs. Republican Evolution

A topic for a weekend discussion, thanks to James Joyner:

Hugh Hewitt: “Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.”

Steven Taylor: “[T]he last time I checked, the Democrats may be the partisan opponents of Republicans, but they aren’t the enemies of the state.”

Discuss.

Joyner has some thoughts on the matter:

I should note that Taylor, like myself, is a lifelong Republican voter. We all prefer the Republican plan, such as it is, to the Democrat plan, at least as exemplified by Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha, and company.

...Taylor, for example, has argued that respect for checks and balances overrides many of the Bush security arguments. I’ve disagreed with that, at least on the margins. Regardless, however, we agree that we must simultaneously go after terrorists and abide by the Constitution.

My problem with Hewitt’s argument, mostly, is one of tone and emphasis. Framing is not unimportant, after all. It is one thing to argue that Republican policies will more effectively enhance the national security interests of the nation than Democratic policies and another to argue that voting for Democrats will lead to “defeat.” It tends to stifle debate rather than advance it.

Furthermore, the labels “Republican” and “Democrat” apply to politicians holding a variety of positions. Numerous Republicans disagree with the president and side with Murtha and company and many (or, at least, some) Democrats are with us. We alienate those predisposed to our position when we take such a hardline stance.

For my part, I think I've been pretty clear in previous writings about my position. I will say again, though, that the mission in Afghanistan is failing just like those in Lebanon, Iraq and the broader "war on Some terror" - and for the same reasons. All rely on a neocon strategy for the application of force which relies on useless tactics and eschews "hearts and minds" operations as being too wimpish to be the main thrust of the mission. If Fukayama and Buckley's retractions, combined with the successes of "maverick" commanders on the ground bucking the neocon model in places like Tal Afar, didn't convince you that the strategy is a mistake then I don't know what will.

The neocon dinosaur is dead. The brains (Fukuyama, Buckley and others)have stopped working for it but like all dinosaurs the message is taking time to get through to the hindquarters. Townhall.com is like the anal sphincter, still spasming and giving a semblance of life.

Just as a for instance on all these terror-related discussions, 80% of Iraqis and 60%+ of Americans want the US out of Iraq. In what version of democracy does that give the right to the remainder to refuse their wishes because it would be a "defeat?" The "national interest" is defined as the will of the people otherwise you no longer have a democracy.

The same holds true for every other foreign policy application as well as for the balancing act between security against terror attacks here in the US and preserving the liberties that define a democracy.

Hewitt has an update to his post in which he claims that he isn't questioning others' patriotism - that there is a "difference between incompetence/negligence and intentional harm" but then he has this:

Trusting the national security to Democrats is like trusting a moving car to a four year old, or the management of a vast company to the junior high school business club. Neither the child nor the preteens want to wreck the car or ruin the corporation, but both results are near inevitable.

I've a question for Hewitt and his supporters.

Suppose those who wish to see a different strategy for fighting the "long war" and wish not to give up liberties to fight that war are broadly victorious at the polls in November and '08, what then?

Will they follow the will of the people (while still arguing their case as is their right) or will they follow through on the rhetoric of incipient "defeat" and "traitors" in charge to the next logical step and demand that democracy be sacrificed?

It is a sad thing that the question has to be asked, but their rhetoric begs it and there it is. Hweitt's update doesn't really answer it. Would any of the other "hardcore" proponents of that position care to venture an answer?

I'm honestly interested. I also feel that a lot of the anti-Hawk unease in U.S. politics right now stems from this unanswered question and Republicans would do well to stake out a sensible position on it sooner rather than later. Too much fear-mongering has led to a fear of the mongers themselves.

It is time for the Republican Party to evolve beyond the dead dinosaur that has defined so much of its policy these last six years.