How should the Democrats address Islamic Terrorism?
 

The 2004 US Presidential election brought to light the issue of the Dems being perceived as 'weak' in their response to terrorism in general, islamic terrorism in particular. The underlying assumption here being that signs of 'weakness' will result in more terrorist attacks on Americans, and therefore the Dems have no business running the White House.

What do you think the Dems need to do to address this 'image problem'? How do they need to deal publicly with the issue of terrorism before the American public, which has already voiced its preference for the Republican ideology?

Do they need to address it at all? If there are no terrorist attacks on the US before the next election, will the political issue of Terrorism go away completely, or will the US be engaged with the issue as fully then as it is now?

there is obviously a link between the extent to which the democrats were "perceived" as "weak" and the central tenents of the bushcampaign as orchestrated by the good mr. rove, who showed no compunction about using the "terror alert" device to raise and lower the level of collective unease, sending the various members of the bushsquad (cheney in particular) around to say things on the order of "if you elect john kerry you will die a fiery painful death"---there is also obviously a link between this tactic and the fact that george w bush enters his second term with the lowest approval ratings ever recorded (since this kind of thing started being tracked, about 80 years) in that those who voted on this order voted bush for what amounts to negative reasons and now find themselves with variables like the assault on fallujah, the prospect of a dismantling of social security (incompetence and lunacy) etc etc....

i find it interesting the number of commentaries that assume that the conservative frame of reference is now somehow so dominant that every other political position has to adapt to it or die. i do not see anything about a 51-49% popular vote that warrants any such conclusion.

what i do see is an ideological offensive from the right that will probably play out in the way that most such offensives do--a period of momentum followed by a period of collapse followed by a period of flailing about for some distraction to avert public scrutiny from the aftereffects of an ill-advised, inadequately considered tactic.

the initial post, in my view, overestimates the role of ideology in shaping the election results, and underestimates the role played by grassroots organizing, via groups like the christian coalition who used the free publicity network provided by churches to advance their cause in terms not suited for mass media play (no need to be sane in the relatively invisible space of a evangelical pulpit--there anything goes--all that matters is the speakers sense of his or her own sincerity, regardles of how well or ill-informed that sincerity might be)...the creation of a rightwing political machine on the model of the old democratic machines in cities--no better, no worse, no different.

so i do not see why the democrats would need to adapt to this at all--i figure that the overwhleming incompetence of the bush administration will grind any value out of this issues politically after 4 more years of legal black holes, arbitrary military actions, disengenuous public statements, etc etc etc.
of course, if things get too out of hand, another attack might help out.
i am not suggesting anything about such an attack
only that it might help the right, if things otherwise unfold as it appears they will....

Well, a good start would be if they stopped supporting the causes and organizations that the terrorists are trying to advance...

Are saying that the democratic party has no responsibility to espouse a logical and effective stance on the issue of terrorism before the american public? That it can just rely on the moveon.orgs and michael moores of the world to set the party agenda as simply republican counterpunchers? It didn't impress the american public too much the first time around...

you missed what i was saying it seems...

first, i do not see why you imagine that the rightwing view of terrorism, whatever that is, is now dominant enough that all other political positions are obliged to play ball on their grounds. i dont see it--what argument could you make that the situation is otherwise?

second, i think you underestimate the extent to which the last election was won through better grassroots organization as much as through the manipulation of questions like "terrorism"

third, i am not at all--at all--convinced that the rightwing stance on its pet issue of "security" is either effective or rational--in the last election, what you got much more often was purely negative claims--cheney in particular, as noted above (which, sadly, was not much of a paraphrase). i dont see much of anything effective or logical in the bush response, which keys on the word "resoluteness" (an old heideggerian term, a reference i am sure bush does not know about) the bush response appears to me to be the theater of a response, surrounded with self-confirming "proofs" (no new attacks=effect of theater: but the 9/11 attacks succeeded because they were unexpected--if i were organizing another attack, i would wait a while to do it, until the theater of preparedness wanes a bit--you cant maintain such a pointless relation to possibilities forever, despite what you may believe)

a far more rational appraoch to "terrorism" would be to work to eliminate causes--something which the right is totally incapable of doing as they cannot bring themselves to pose any coherent questions about causes at all.

fourth, i do not understand what you construe as being the democratic party--you know full well that move on is not affiliated, is well to the left of the flaccid, centrist democratic party--the only reason i expect you lump them in is for redbaiting purposes. but that is fantasy on your part. but you know this. same kind of thing with michael moore. but you know this too. why pretend otherwise?

[[i use the terms right/.rightwing/conservative to avoid this kind of goofiness--the republican party is but a part of a much larger ideological machine in the states, one that is not identical with the party itself--i am not convinced of the utility of the conservative vision of what it opposes]]

fifth: the right is in no position to talk about "the american public" as if it was a single entity--51-49% remember?---so i do not know what you are talking about really when you say "it didn't impress the american public too much..."--do you know what you are talking about in that sentence? care to explain?

Hmm. There is a way to act in order to win, and there is a way to act in order to be right.

In order to win (i.e. Kerry would have won if...), the dems should have promised to catch OBL and end the war on terror - which is improbable and impossible to promise, but america doesn't see to care about possibilities. Kerry should have said something to the effect, "We will bring our troops home, AND we will catch OBL, AND we will rebuild Iraq. And it won't cost us one red cent." All of his campaign money should have gone to bribing CEOs and executives of the major news companies, with the promise of tax breaks to them if he is elected. CNN and MSNBC would probalby cave, and FOX would follow in suit. After a great smear campaign on all the news networks, Bush would be impeached before the election even happened. After winning every state, Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq and it would colapse from lack of structure. Then we would see terrorist activity lessen (why? becuase we are leaving the middle east, i.e. what the terrorists want). We might see other countries being attacked though, becuase the terrorist actions would have been percieved as successful in removing us from their home.

The right way to address terrorism (not islamic, in general) is to set up talks with the terrorists. I know this sounds crazy, but you'd be surprised what they might do in the face of possible ending to the "war". We meet via satelite and we don't tack them or anything. We state our intentions, and they state theirs. We want oil and a stop to terrorism, they want us to stop lending them money they can't repay, and trying to westerize them (and of course there is the bombing of innocent civilians). We quickly discover that it is possible for the oil companies to build there, and hire middle eastern workers (thus both economies are supported). They stop attacking because they are being left alone for the most part. We stop bombing because they aren't a threat anymore. We sign a treaty of non agression or something (that guarentees them a repsectable percentage of the oil money and no attacks, and guarentees us safety from terrorists).

Of course this is impossible. Oh well.

I think he's saying bush will fuck things up so bad that people won't want to elect another repulican.

It's called the paper tiger, grrr. The Islamist already percieve us as this, just look at our media and the left, they do a pretty good job of showing weak knees. But yeah cave into there demands, leave, tell me how that works for you.

Is this last paragraph even remotely serious? Hamas? Islamic jihad? You think murderous sociopaths will stick to their words?

edit: Also pulling out of Iraq could possibly THE MOST insane and idiotic Idea when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorism. Just what we need, another country like Iran in the Middle East :rolleyes:

Mojo, I have to say I respect you a lot. I think you might have misunderstood my post. Read it with my vioce being sarcastic, not serious.

So to clarify, I was jesting. The entire second paragraph should be evidence of this. Sit back, have a beer, and smile. Not everyone has a stick up his/her ass. :thumbsup:

Why do I jest? The original question assumes that Bush won because of his stance on Terror. I believe that a lot of people voted for him inspite of his stance on terror. I played into the question.

What do the 'terrorists' want anyway?

So far, it looks as though US policy has played right into their hands.

Educating the American public on world issues, and giving an unbiased non-American viewpoint would rapidly promote the Democrat's cause. It's a shame Moore used the same cheap, alarmist, reactionary and biased methods as much of the Republican media, he had a great opportunity and he blew it.

that's why "control room" is a much better, far more damaging film than moore's....

I feel like an ass.

But I was actually baffled, I actually thought you were insane. I have heard this mentality too many times, my most common reaction is to bash my skull into a brick wall... after cracking their's first.

My most humble apologies sir.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9FEDA1F597.htm

looks like the americans are creating what they are most afraid of in iraq.
yet somehow you defend bush's little adventure in iraq as part of a rational response to anything.......i dont get it.

Please, I would REALLY like proof of this statement.

Didnt you say this about the last election? About how there was no way Bush would win it because of his gross incompetence?

The Democrats DO need to adapt. They need to adress international politics with something other than appeasemnt. If you look at the American public, while we want the world to like us, appeasement isnt what we want atm.

Granted, but if Bush fucked things up so bad in his first term with his supposedly disastrous 'War on Terror' why did the american people re-elect him? Wasn't this an implicit endorsement of the Repubs' stand on terrorism?

The central issue of the election was terrorism, billions were spent by both parties soley on ads concerning terrorism, not say, social security. Plus both sides had splinter advertising groups (moveon.org, swift boats, etc) focused soley on terrorism.

I repeat: How should the Democrats position themselves - ideologically - in regards to terrorism? Should they have a take of their own, or just continue to refute everything the Repubs say?

edit (forgot to signal who/what this refers to)

seaver:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGFDAI9AG1.DTL

there are a number of articles that cite the same poll data.
this is one of them--there is a longer one on salon.com

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

but you have to sit through a commercial to see the article for free.

third time:

51-49%

it is hardly an overwhelming endorsement----"the american public" did not react as a bloc to rightwing ideological tactics.

(an aside which is not meant as snippily as it may read: it grows wearisome to post the same thing over and over.)

And so the rest of the world has to appease the US?

The problem with the 'kill them all' policy is that you can't complain when your enemies take up the same policy. Add a little collateral damage into the mix and it's not long before everyone is adopting a 'kill them all' policy.

The results are either
a) A long, drawn-out, meaningless and unwinnable conflict that does little except spread animosity, hatred and distrust (not to mention bring many to their untimely deaths)
b) The capitulation and surrender of one side or the other.
c) The complete annihalation of one side or the other.
d) A realisation of the failure of the policy and subsequent attempts to undo the harm it has caused.

Which one do you want? And which one is most likely to occur?

Other alternatives might include infiltration, diplomacy, trade and other economic tools of persuasion.

It's so much cheaper (for the taxpayer) to help another nation out than it is to wage a war with it.

When the 'nation' you are waging war with has no borders, the cost rises astronomically - the truth is that this policy can't continue for much longer, and that's just plain old economics. If the US really extolls the virtues of the the free-market and democracy, why doesn't it put its trust in these ideals when conducting its foreign policy?

If this is so, then why did the Dems choose to embrace Moore, so much so that they sat him next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention?

Michael Moore is the best the Dems can do to help the party? He is their public face, their messiah, in dealing with terrorism? I think that somehow, they should be able to do better than Michael Moore.

I thought he was serious too..hehehe.
You had us there for a sec, willtravel. ;)

i have to take my dog to the vet now.
please read the posts above if we are to discuss this matter--or others related to it--because i already noted this stuff. criminy...i might not agree with you politically on many things, powerclown, but at least i read your posts carefully. its seems a prerequisite.

off to see why my husky keeps scratching and licking his back.

I read your posts carefully too, roachboy.
I read everbody's posts carefully.
:confused:

thank you, gems like this info are much of the reason I comb through the rest of politics these days.

hadn't heard of this film before.

I hope as you reread it, you understand what I was really trying to communicate. And it's willravel. Heh. :lol:

Sorry, willravel... :cool:


I see many Democratic leaders having a sane, reasonable view of Islamic terrorism and a good understanding of how to oppose it. I think the same can be said about the Democratic party overall; it isn't as if there is a lack of brainpower working the problem over. BUT, they need to learn from their mistakes and nominate people with credibility on the issue. People who say one thing when the polls are one way and another when they think the polls are going the other way are not credible and that's what Senator Kerry did during his campaign.

Are you implying that the 'official' Democratic position should be anti-war, anti-preemptive strike, anti-depose a dictator? Should they be actively voicing their disapproval to whats going on in Iraq, for example? After all, if Democrats are representative of those citizens opposed to how the Repubs are dealing with 'terrorism', shouldn't they be speaking out more vocally - ie, trying to assert the demand's of their constituency - against the actions of the Repubs?

If so, then why aren't they? Why the silence and the acquiescence? Why are they giving in to the 'neocons' 'warmongering'? It seems to me that when it comes to modern American foreign policy post-911, there is little difference between the Dems and Repubs, or, what is arguably worse, the Democrats' foreign policy ideology is being silenced by the Repubs' foreign policy ideology. If this is the case, how are the Dems going to reassert themselves and retake political power in America?

I would say you're underestimating the power of a numerical advantage. 51-49, or 52-48, or 55-45 whichever it is, means defeat for the lower number. Is defeat an acceptable outcome? Will the Democratic party be satisfied with getting 48% of the vote from now on? Will losing be acceptable to the Democratic party from now on?

How do they go about securing the winning percentage of the vote, instead of the losing percentage, in the next election?