JOHN KERRY AND THE DEMS VIETNAM COMPLEX


David Brooks' analysis of the Dems' current internal struggles on foreign policy gets the politics right even if he misunderstands the underlying foreign policy debate.

Now, in the midst of the war against Islamic totalitarianism, the crucial question is this: Is the Democratic Party truly set to reclaim the legacy of Truman and Kennedy, or is it still living in the shadow of Vietnam?

If you talk to Democratic foreign policy elites in Washington and New York, you come away convinced that the party has recovered from Vietnam, and is ready to assert power, albeit in multilateral guises. If, on the other hand, you attend Democratic primary rallies, you come away convinced that the party is still, at its base, the Jimmy Carter party when it comes to global affairs.

And if you listen to John Kerry, you come away not knowing what to think. He seems like a man betwixt and between, unable to issue a clear statement about America's role in the world, and hence floating toward whatever is expedient at the moment.

If Kerry can speak the language of Truman and Kennedy, and stick with it, he will cross a basic threshold, and Americans will consider trusting him with their security. If he does not cross that threshold, all the personal heroism in the world will not be enough to get him elected.

As usual, things are more complicated than Brooks's pithy summarization. While it is true that the Dems grassroots is still firmly in the grasp of the Jeffersonians, its foreign policy elite is not necessarily on board with the War on Terror. Rather than being representing the party of Kennedy, the Dem foreign policy elite represents the party of Clinton - ranging from the Hamiltonians who reject the entire neocon "Democracy by Any Means Necessary" project to Wilsonians who support the ends but condemn what they feel are inconsistent support for nation-building and excessive reliance on unilateralism, with Globalists holding intermediate views still dominant. Thus, while the Dem elite is not hostile to the use of American force (unlike much of the Dem base), it is still, especially in a unilateral context, ambivalent. Which is why the muddled contradictions of John Kerry might all-too-well reflect where the Democratic Party really is today on national security.