Hagel is a Republican. Although it has become customary for recent
administrations to name members of the opposing party to cabinet posts as a token
of bipartisanship, particularly in their second terms, Republicans have
consistently run the Pentagon for the past sixteen years regardless of which party has held the White House. The lone exception has been outgoing SECDEF
Leon Panetta, who has held office for a paltry eighteen months.
The reason for this trend, I think, is not a purported
desire for bipartisan amity. Rather,
it’s because Republicans have coopted national security as their policy issue. Presidents of both parties have shown little
hesitation to resort to military force; nevertheless, Republican
administrations have cloaked themselves in a reputation for toughness the
Democrats can never seem to match. So,
whenever a Democratic president taps a Republican to oversee defense policy he
is sending a message that he and the nation will be resolute in the face of foreign threats.
The Democratic reputation for weakness has little historical basis. In the past, even when they ran for office on
a peace platform, Democratic presidents have stepped readily into the role of
wartime leader whenever necessary.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR cemented the U.S. in its role as global power by
leading the U.S. through the world wars.
Lyndon Johnson soundly trounced the hawkish Barry Goldwater in 1964
by playing upon public fears of thermonuclear holocaust, only to escale the war in Vietnam after he won.
The so-called “Daisy Girl” spot aired by the
Johnson campaign is still considered among the most effective political commercials
of the TV age. The best response the
Goldwater team could muster was a message featuring a grim-faced Ronald Reagan downplaying
Goldwater’s reputation as a warmonger. Reagan’s
legendary stature as the “Great Communicator” notwithstanding, the commercial
was no match for the Daisy Girl ad. The
prospect of nuking little girls playing in meadows was just too unsettling for many
voters.
Unfortunately, Johnson's eagerness to prove himself as a wartime leader permanently altered the complexion of his own party. His insane escalation policy in Southeast Asia, along with the
social divide created by the Civil Rights Movement, irrevocably split the New
Deal coalition which had ensured Democratic electoral successes for nearly four
decades.
The result was that in 1972, the Democratic coalition prominently
featured antiwar activists. George McGovern ran on a promise to end the U.S.
role in the Vietnam conflict. Concurrently,
the Southern Strategy had lured the better part of a key Democratic
constituency—conservative whites—to the Republican Party. In spite of McGovern’s bona fides as a decorated World War II veteran, American voters
overwhelmingly chose the tough-talking Richard Nixon.
The 1972 disaster tarred the Democrats with
the peacenik brush. Never mind that
Nixon brought the troops home a few months after the election without any loss
of face. The Republicans
were tough realists; the Democrats were wimps.
Jimmy Carter, who had spent more time in uniform than any president
since Dwight Eisenhower, was dogged by this reputation. If Gerald Ford had been faced with the Iran
hostage crisis instead of Carter, and had he dealt with it in an identical
fashion, it is unlikely Ford would have been judged a failure to the same
extent as Carter. To a public largely
devoid of critical thinking skills, perception is reality and Carter went into
the crisis already looking weak.
Post-1972 Democratic campaign themes didn’t always help
matters. A 1984 Mondale campaign ad
interspersing images of innocent-looking children with those of launching
missiles set to the strains of Crosby, Stills, and Nash’s “Teach Your Children”
didn’t even win over aging Baby Boomers.
By contrast, the Reagan reelection campaign emphasized the theme of
renewed American greatness. Metaphorically
addressing Cold War security issues, the “Bear in the Woods” ad made the case
for a strong national defense in the face of an adversary whose intentions
weren’t always evident.
Nor did the efforts of Democratic
presidential candidates to appear martial go over well; one need only recall
Michael Dukakis’ infamous tank ride to grasp that simply posing with military hardware
won’t automatically give you street cred.
Bill Clinton’s draft board contretemps garnered him conservative
hostility in the ’92 race, though his antiwar stance during Vietnam had
seemingly evaporated by the time he reached the White House. The interventions in Somalia, Haiti, and the
Balkans, as well as his eagerness to (figuratively) stand toe-to-toe with
Saddam Hussein would have cemented the rep of any Republican administration,
but few adherents of either party have cared to acknowledge Mr. C’s frequently
belligerent foreign policy.
By the time of the 2000 election, the
respective images of each party had become fixed. Al Gore had gone to Vietnam while Dubya
played hooky from his Air National Guard duties, but that hardly mattered. The wimp factor loomed large, and Gore’s
condescending, pedagogical persona did little to help the Democratic cause. The red/blue divide was drawn down the very
middle of the American electorate, a division which has changed little in the
intervening dozen years. Public opinion
concerning the War on Terror and our ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq has
largely followed this divide.
Republicans have dominated the national security
issue for so long that the collective wisdom of the party leadership has trickled
down to the rank and file voter. (Popular
belief may be one of the few instances where “trickle down” has actually
worked. It certainly hasn’t
economically.) One can learn this in just about any
discussion with a Republican on defense and foreign policy.
I’ll give you an anecdotal example. During the bleak second year following the
invasion of Iraq, I was at one of my son’s Little League games and the topic of
the war came up among the dads watching in the bleachers. One of them, a pudgy electrical supplies
salesman I’ll call Laszlo, was describing the battle for Fallujah with particular
relish.
Laszlo spoke sagely of flanking and
envelopments and preparatory fires, of reconnaissance patrols and intel
analyses and the marksmanship feats of snipers.
I mean, wow, it was like you were really there! In my mind’s eye I saw flags waving and
eagles soaring. I could hear a Toby Keith anthem swelling in
the background as F-16s swooped to punish the enemies of freedom. It was all I could do to suppress the lump
rising in my throat and the tears of pride welling in my eyes—
But I composed myself long enough to exclaim,
“Laszlo, that’s an incredible story!
You obviously know a lot about this stuff! When did you serve?”
Laszlo suddenly looked sheepish and said, “I
tried to enlist after high school, but my trick knee kept me out. My wife’s nephew is a Marine, and he told me
all about it.”
Hmmm, yes, it’s always a bad back or a trick
knee that prevents these suburban heroes from doing their part to safeguard democracy. But that’s okay, because the simple act of
registering Republican will make you an automatic expert on matters of war and
peace.
President Obama appears to agree. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m criticizing the
president’s political motives and not Hagel’s qualifications. Chuck Hagel led an infantry squad in Vietnam
and knows first-hand what it means to serve and sacrifice. But the president’s audience for this move,
the voters he’s trying to convince, are guys like Laszlo who are perfectly
happy to send other peoples’ kids off to war.
This is the place where I should say that the
Democrats need to take back the national security issue from the
Republicans. This may not matter as much
as I’ve implied, however. Electoral
choice is illusory in a two-party system.
Both parties are the tools of Big Capital, and peace is bad for
business. Consequently, it matters
little whether President Obama chooses a Republican or Democrat to helm the
Pentagon during his second term. Senator
Hagel is a good choice given the personal attributes we valorize as an imperial nation. I only wish our values would lead
us to select a different kind of person to hold such a critical post.
No comments:
Post a Comment