LAT op-ed: Neocons in the Democratic Party

Neocons in the Democratic Party
Like Kennedy and Truman, Democratic neocons want to beef up the military and won't run from a fight.
By Jacob Heilbrunn (Jacob Heilbrunn, a former LA Times editorial writer, is writing a book on neoconservatism.)
May 28, 2006

DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary.

These Democrats want to be seen as anything but the squishes who have led the party to defeat in the past....Where will all this lead? To an internecine Democratic war, of course. Just as Republicans are being riven by debates between realists and Bush administration idealists, so the Democratic Party is about to witness its own battle....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-heilbrunn28may28,0,6411415.story?coll=la-home-commentary

to keep folks from voting dem. Sorry... this is the third time this crap has been posted on DU!

of the November elections.

shame DUers post this garbage.

We will not let warmongers run this country, Democrat or Republican.

I call this bullshit, and know propaganda when I see it. Name the Neo-cons before you hold a political "witch Hunt". Next swiftboating of the Democratic Party.... next... keep it coming!

There are officeholders in the Dem. Party who support policies of war and aggression.
Let's debate these issues.
Has it come to the point where these issues are forbidden to be debated? Where there is no care for principles, but only loyalty to the party is the only value?

I wish it was not true.

But some of the other posters do have a valid reason for concern. This realization may very well keep a number of people from voting Democratic. And this element could likely cause a great deal of harm to the Party.

Oh I wish, I wish it was not true.

...where you think the author is less than honest.

Lieberman and his corporate ass-licking DLC types do NOT speak for liberals. Most Dems want to STOP throwing millions of dollars into bullshit wars just so defense contractors can get rich-er. Neo-cons are purely conservative (or at least Republican), hence the CON for CONservative. Most Dems I know want OUT of this BULLSHIT so called "war on terror". :mad:

RummyIsFrosted says.."It's a menage a troi!"! :blush: :blush:

:grr:

But Iraq was never a real threat. So the comparison with the Democrats of old falls flat.

The comparison is quite valid.

to the U.S. Islamic jihadists are an extreme threat to our security, but they are stateless for the most part, and need to be dealt with in more mundane ways like simple law enforcement and beefed up security, not large glorious wars the way * and the neocons imagined. I do not think that Islamic jihadists are as big a threat as the Soviet Union was, with their nuclear arsenal. The most the jihadists could do (and we're talking WORST CASE SCENARIO) is explode a dirty bomb or small nuclear device in 1 or 2 cities. It would be horrible, but incomparable to the total destruction of the civilized world that would have occurred had there been nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

I hate that leaders today are always comparing the GWOT to WWII or the Cold War. Those are bad comparisons. Comparing Iraq and Vietnam actually does have some merit because they are both counterinsurgency wars, although the North Vietnamese were MUCH more of a formidable enemy than the Sunni insurgency. Civil War is probably more a threat in Iraq than the insurgency taking over the country (talk about unlikely with or without American troops).

I'm not a dove against the Islamic jihadists. I just think that invading other countries and "democratizing" the world is NOT the solution to this problem, and in fact, aggravates it. But you see Bush and Rumsfeld easily get bored with trivialities like port security or cooperation with Europeans to stamp out terrorist cells. They would much rather bring in the big guns and blow up a bunch of stuff, just to show our power. Well, that is just stupid. How about we fight this war smart, but without the unnecessary fireworks. It would probably work better, faster, and save lives all the way around.

beachmom, thanks!

Hype and Super Hype!

We have got to put a stop to this movement within our Party, starting with the DLC and going on from there.

Lieberman needs to go, too. His close association with Bush and his war-mongering ways is unsettling and should serve as a red flag for all of us.

TC

cancer that's for sure. Bunch of Liars cause the truth wouldn't fly.

there is none of the disease left. Or the body will die. It's our choice. I say, pass the skalpel NOW.

TC

I have lost all faith in any party.

I am quickly losing faith in this countries ability to redeem itself.

Neoconservatism is fundamentally built on the idea of pre-emptive invasion and colonization of other countries.

You can promote democracy around the world without invading and colonizing other countries. You can fight terror without invading and colonizing other countries. You can even strengthen the military without invading and colonizing other countries.

Just because you have a plan to fight terrorism does not make you a neoconservative.

Why does it not surprise me that the writer of this piece has a book about neoconservatism coming out?

I don't think you'll find too many credible people who believe that Democrats who are strong on national defense and who are calling for the return of the Democratic tradition of Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism of Truman and Kennedy are "neocons," and the labeling of said presidents as such is a tad over the top.

STOP FUCKING THE REST OF THE PLANET

...and securing the profits of the MIC and Transnational Corporation is the GOAL.

Media Matters busts him here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503150001

Supporters of President Bush's nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations have echoed the administration's comparison of Bolton to the late former U.N. ambassador and U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But comparing Bolton to Moynihan ignores fundamental differences in their views of international law and misrepresents Moynihan's position on the U.N.... In a March 9 column in the Los Angeles Times, editorial writer and Hoover Institution media fellow Jacob Heilbrunn asserted that Moynihan "did not just display contempt for the U.N., he flaunted it." But Heilbrunn provided no examples of Moynihan expressing contempt for the U.N. itself.

Now. I do not mean ALL Democrats. I am talking about these people who say that if you don't vote for a candidate who is basically a DINO, then you are a "Republican" supporter. Anybody know what I mean? Those type of people who want all Democrats to vote in lockstep and agree with every DLC-inspired policy and the lawmakers that support and enable the Neocons. They along with the Republicans want you to choose between only Republican and Republican Lite. Whatever happened to voting your conscience and sticking to your principles? This is what is so disgusting about our political system these days. We desparately need more choices. That is what a true democracy has!


John

There's a pretty good labelling system that works for me.

Column A : Douchebag
Column B : Not a douchebag

Either that or phase out the Democratic Party and let the Republican Party be the only party to rule over us all. The DLC and their multinational corporate masters and those other people who enable the Neocons are spearheading this. I think if there will be a Democratic-Republican merger will take place the next time we have a major crisis in this country. The differences the between the two parties are so blurred now. It will happen. That or the Democratic Party will just become a token opposition party with the Republicans holding all the power from the local level to the national level.


John

If they would officially merge and do so publicly it would be a divine gift. Then we the people would be free to start our own party and compete honestly on issues. Your other outcome is more likely, that they have already merged behind the scenes but continue to promote a facade of difference so that we the people will be dissuaded from taking such action because we believe we are actually choosing between two distinct entities. The charade could last an eternity while they keep us at each others throats for the sake of something as consequential as trading baseball cards. Funny thing is, on the streets, most of their guys want pretty much the same things as most of our guys. Its just the leaderships that keep it confused enough so that no one knows.

with the Republicans holding all the power from the local level to the national level."

Hell that's mostly the case right now.

Many Dems are already showing signs they won't attempt impeachment of they win back congress.

H. Clinton is cavorting w/ Murdoch and talking about long term (permanent) bases in Iraq.

But so far, I haven't heard anybody with a big name opposing them. The Democrats have promised balanced budgets. That means they'll have to cut somewhere. The military is the mother lode of waste.

There is no way America can afford to keep tax rates this low, entitlements this large, debt payments this high and pay for the baby boom retirement and maintain a military capable of taking over the world. Something has to go. Somebody has to speak up.

prevent war. It is sickening to see these MOFO's invoke his name to fight wars. :grr:

....should PAY their FAIR SHARE!
He set the top rate at 70%....something you won't see the DLC supporting..

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

But when you consider that today it's like 45% and JFK set it to 70%, he looks like a socialist by today's standards. When these people invoke Kennedy's name to support their causes, they forget how much their own actions have changed the playing field.

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamist fundamentalism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

snip:" That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality. "

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "

read full speech - link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html
_______________

and while on the subject of Mr. Brzezinski here are his thoughts regarding Iran:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

is a weasel-toothed little shit.

The only good thing about the "forever war" folks is that you get to find out how many different ways there are to say "fuck off"

Wee children in grown-ups clothing, you don't argue with them, you firmly say "NO!" And if that fails, send the little buggers to their rooms...or threaten to banish them to the demented playpen of the Republican Party.

video games, toy soldiers and copies of the New Republic and go outside and play and let the grownups handle things.

And next time when he has a homework assignment he should have a responsible adult check it first before turning it in.

TNR was all for the Iraq invasion, and then "apologized" later.

I'd say "Get it right the first time", but it looks pretty hopeless. I wish they'd just register R and be done with it.

There's big money in mistakes if you're Republican. Me? I'm just going to keep telling Beinhart and pals to "bugger off". I don't see that anything important or helpful to the American people will come from discussions with people who've already made disastrous choices based on "failing" to fact check. And yet they still think killing people will somehow stem the flow of terrorism. :crazy:

the war in Iraq. He also said (during the run up to the war) that the anti-war people were unpatriotic.

Has he ever apologized for this?

Peter Beinart former Editor of the New Republic even went so far as to call for a purge of virtually the entire progressive movement from the Democratic Party.

Two leading "centrist" figures Ruy Teixeira and John Judis, coauthors of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" denounced this lunacy.

Oh, What a Lovely Day for a Purge! by Ruy Teixeira - link:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

"Peter Beinart, editor of the The New Republic, proposes in their latest magazine that Democrats stop all this unity nonsense and get down to what's really important: purging the party of all those wrong-headed "softs" who don't have the backbone to stand up (really stand up) to the new totalitarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Their failure to "report for duty" (Beinart specifically mentions only MoveOn and Michael Moore but I think his criteria for softness would also implicate most of the liberal blogosphere, most Dean campaign activists, a good chunk of the leadership of the 527s and countless others within the party) cost the Democrats the White House in 2004 and will do so forever until Democrats decisively remove them from power and influence in the party. Yes, it's purge time in the glorious spirit of the late '40s actions against Communists and those soft on them within the Democratic party."

Then John Judis added:

"Initiating factional warfare with, or even purging, everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman will not create a viable Democratic Party. Okay, that may be an exaggeration of what Peter prescribes, but there are clear echoes in his essay of Ben Wattenberg's Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which tried to do something similar after the 1972 Democratic defeat by creating a party centered around Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The voters didn't buy it, and they won't buy Peter's party either.
Peter also misunderstands MoveOn.org and the various other Internet-based groups that have sprung up in the last five years. They are not an old-fashioned militant left but part of a college-educated post-industrial center-left politics that was developing under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. One of their big issues was the deficit, hardly a left-wing concern. They became identified with "the left" because they were early and prescient opponents of the Iraq war--a position that can no longer simply be identified with the left and that is not a reason to criticize them. Sure, they shouldn't have participated in marches with the Workers World Party, but these new movements are organized by people who don't have long political pedigrees. If anything, they are the best hope for a new moral vision that will animate the Democrats."

link to full article:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

and go fight their Emmanuel Goldsteins in some distant land rather than allow them to take power and continue with a secular version of Bush's failed policies.

explanation in what I believe was the very last issue I will ever pay for. (I Did not--nor will I ever--re-subscribe.)

I know I have it packed away here somewhere.

EDIT: Just found a column stating that TNR's editors had "regrets"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53812-2004Jun18.html

the only thing "new" about the neocons in the dem party is that they're in decline.

Hey Jacob, why didn't you mention your "political champion" Lieberman's run for the presidency? How did that turn out? :rofl:

...they have to foist it off onto the Dems.

But I don't know what "battle" they're expecting to "witness." Everyone is "for expanding the existing war against terrorism" -- to the terrorists!

I'm sure he's been very specific about who the "scared to use force" Dems are who will engage in this "internecine Democratic war," lining up against such extreme notions as "multilateral consensus" and "promoting democracy," but I can't be bothered to wade through any more of this drivel.

--

I will not support any "beefing" up of the military. We are armed to the paranoid teeth as it is.

Neo-con or neo-stupidity, whatever the flavor, these "liberal imperialist" plans are nothing but fuel for the fire. It's like mending a broken limb, suffered by falling out a window, by jumping right back out the same fucking window.

Democrats are not immune as the sensible posters above have pointed out. Say what you want about Kosovo, but clinton in Iraq, well...that is one elephant in the room nobody discusses around here.

The ideas quoted in the op should be debated vigorously and I hope somebody starts by giving these asshole neo-stupids a history lesson.

I call the militarists in any party squishy paranoid androids. "Hut two three four what are we fighting for. Our fear our fear. Our Fucking Paranoid fears.! Three Four". ...marching to the paranoid beat, while we foot the bill of the war profiteering industry.

Democratic Party.

Karl's marching orders must have gone out...


and it doesn't help that so many on the left side of the aisle are more than willing to buy this garbage

against the Muslim world. That is garbage. It doesn't help that we have influential people in the Party like Peter Beinart who publicly call for purging the entire progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That is garbage. These very same people have been trying very hard for very long to push the Democratic Party into extremist positions and way, way out of the mainstream.

I wish, I wish none of this were true. But it is; unfortunately.

This whole thing looks like PNAC folks pumped a bunch of money into the DLC, paid them to write some books, then launched a media campaign. Classic GOP, but it doesn't appear many Dems are convinced. Its hard to justify the invasion of Iraq to Dems when 60% of the US are sick of it.

so incredibly stupid - just as the country is getting sick of war and the vulnerability that lead many Americans astray post 9-11 is starting to wear off -- and people are starting to think with a clear head instead of lashing out at the Muslim world in hate -- just when the country is in the mood for Peace. These #@$^%$##^% people come along and try to push a war agenda down the Democratic Party's throat USING OPENLY - OVERT-RACIST JINGOISTIC IMAGES - coming up to an election when the country wants to vote for peace.

If I was a conspiracy theorist......

The party of Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman used to win occasionally.

A person who believes in economic justice and civil liberties should not be excommunicated simply for being a hawk.