-->
To answer the rhetorical question above, I doubt it. A party that loses to complete idiots
like George W. Bush and Donald Trump is so seriously out of touch as to suggest
that Barack Obama’s election was a recession-induced fluke. I’d like to see a
truly progressive alternative rise from Democratic ashes. But let’s assume that
resuscitation is possible. How could Democrats respond to their latest
thumping? A few ideas:
1. Send old warhorses to the glue factory.
Some of the people listed below were ones I admired—back
when both of us were younger, that
adjective being the key word. A new Democratic Party needs to look like
tomorrow, not yesterday. Under no circumstances should any of the following
play so much as an advisory role in a Demo remake:
Hillary Clinton: Second-wave feminism in a
third-wave world. Her time came and went.
Bill Clinton: It
baffles me why anyone admires this sleaze ball Republican in Democratic clothing.
Nancy Pelosi: Like Hillary minus the pants suit.
Russ Feingold: Admirable man, but his ship sailed
decades ago.
Jerry Brown: Governor Moonbeam is now Governor
Sunset.
Debbie
Waserman-Schultz: Perhaps the
person most culpable for Trump’s presidency. You’re fired, Debbie!
John Kerry: “I used to be a contender! Instead of a hack, which is
what I am.”
Anthony Weiner: Like a sheet whose stain can’t be
removed and eventually you just toss it.
Charlie Crist: Was never really a Democrat, but
gets to play one on TV every other election.
Evan Bayh: How many elections can one man
lose, before he sleeps in the sand?
Jim Webb: Loose cannons should be left to
rust.
Assorted
Kennedys: "I knew Jack
Kennedy… and you're no Jack Kennedy."
Democratic National
Committee:. Like a used Cadillac in a hybrid world. No one is buying.
AFL-CIO: These moribund
bureaucrats are a bigger threat to the future of unions more than an offshore
rig-full of corporate raiders.
2. Admit that conservatives might be right
about (some parts of) immigration policy.
Democrats shouldn't surrender to xenophobia, but a blind man
can see that current immigration laws are absurd. If you want open borders, make
the case, but if the USA is going to have any
immigration laws, they need to be rational and enforceable. What might a
middle path look like?
a. Declare a reset date. Trump’s
promise to deport all illegals can't be kept. Hammer out a sensible reset date and offer a path to
citizenship for those on the correct side of it. Write off the rest. It's elemental:
No one else gets to ignore laws they don't like.
b. Substantially raise the number for
annual legal immigration. Give priority to those from the Western
hemisphere. America needs more laborers and, frankly, it’s cruel to cherry pick
intellectuals and professionals from developing nations. Many nations have
policies that won’t allow the hiring of foreign professionals unless no current
national can do the job.
c. Dramatically expand the number of
refugee entries, but….
d. Implement much better screening of
all entering the USA. No one should enter until a thorough background
check has been completed: fingerprint and photo database searches, Interpol
checks, extensive interviewing, etc.)
e. Issue unalterable identity cards for all Americans and legal aliens.
This would also take the wind from the sails of the voter ID crowd. And, yes,
the states have to pay for these and have to make card centers accessible to
all.
f.
Punish employers who hire undocumented workers.
No documentation? The employer is jailed, fined severely,
and pays the costs of prosecution and deportation of illegally hired workers. Let’s see how many undocumented workers
are mowing Phoenix golf courses when CEOs are cooling their heels in jail.
3. This will rankle
Kumbaya liberals, but admit that conservatives are right: There really is a clash of civilizations.
Samuel Huntington's Clash
of Civilizations argues that cultural and religious ideologies have
supplanted political views as the chief source of global conflict in the
post-Cold War era. It's a very
short walk from Huntington to an Islamophobic revival of the Crusades, but denial
of all legitimacy is an equally short stroll to surrendering to Islamofascism/Islamomisogny.
Democrats need a coherent middle path. It would entail a degree of profiling,
which could be massaged by enacting extra layers of screening for anyone seeking entry into the U.S. from
volatile regions. Still, it's facile to ignore the fact that this falls
disproportionately upon Muslims. Democrats are correct that very few of the
world's 1.6 billion Muslims are terrorists, but there is a war against the West. Attacks on Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Paris, and New York
simply cannot be ignored.
Part of the screening process should be cultural. Americans should
stop apologizing for secular values, cultural diversity, materialism, support
for Israel, and pluralism. The message should be unambiguous: a
precondition for coming to the United States is acceptance of these values in
word and deed.
4. Abandon the
Obama Doctrine for the Carter Doctrine, as tempered by George F. Kennan.
Barack Obama put forth a vision of how the world ought to operate: adversaries speaking
to each other in search of common ground. There's no need to close that door,
but it's too utopian to be the cornerstone of foreign policy. In practice, the
Obama Doctrine gives tyrants, theocrats, and authoritarians too much leeway.
Jimmy Carter had a better idea: peg U.S. foreign aid and
trade to human rights. Ronald Reagan gave priority to trade as if human rights
didn't matter and was a damned fool for doing so. It's idiotic to
send massive aid to wealthy Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic nations
in the world; to the failed state of Pakistan, a major den of terrorism; to the
authoritarian monsters of Honduras and Haiti; to Turkey, an oppressor of Kurds
and an Islamic state supporter; or to scores of other nations low on the human rights
scale. Stop shedding crocodile tears for Palestine (#110 of 167 on that list),
and stop blaming Israel (#34) for its woes. Carter's economic hammer was a
better idea.
George Kennan advised dividing the globe into nations core
and peripheral to American interests. The
Obama Doctrine is more moral, but Kennan's is more pragmatic. Trump may be onto something in his
critique of NATO, which consistently asks North Americans to bear the troop and
financial burdens that Europeans should assume. Kennan would have said the Iraq
War should have never been fought; it's not in U.S. core interests. He'd have
said the same of Syria. Various global nightmares break our hearts but, as we've
tragically seen in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and elsewhere, U.S. intervention that
goes beyond humanitarian aid causes more problems than it alleviates. Democrats
could argue with history on their side that the only justifiable U.S. military intervention since World War Two was
toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. That didn't go very well
either. It's time to put the kibosh on GOP reversion of the Department of
Defense into the Department of War.
Next up (in order):
A Democratic Economic and Social Agenda; a non-Democratic Party progressive
platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment