It’s odd that I missed this TCS article by Michael Totten (Are the Jacksonians Sated?) when it came out. He says that the answer is Yes, by the way:
Now that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been routed, the Jacksonians have mellowed. There isn’t much of a push to open another front in a third country. They will remain mostly satisfied unless and until another violent event riles them up again. It could be another attack on America or one of our allies. Perhaps the wrong regime will acquire nuclear weapons. Maybe a moderate Muslim government will be overthrown by Islamofascist insurgents.
Until then, they’re on hold. They sharply criticized the Spanish retreat from Iraq, but they have little specific to say in our own foreign policy debate. They aren’t interested in the UN, multilateralism, democracy promotion, nation-building, or any other grand strategy. They are reactive, not proactive, and they are waiting to see who has the guts to mess with us next.
There’s a fairly good insight or three in the article; Totten’s explanation of the current poll numbers as reflecting a standoff between two factions of Wilsonians (old school Democrats and neoconservatives), with the Jacksonians currently falling back to a reactive position, is definitely something to consider further. If this is accurate – and, to be honest, one of the problems that I’ve always had with the Jacksonian / Wilsonian / Jeffersonian / Hamiltonian model is that it sometimes seems a bit too good to be true* – then it would seem to follow that another terrorist attack on US soil will, in point of fact, guarantee Bush the election, unless Kerry successfully demonstrates before then that he is both able and willing to wage an effective WoT.
Moe
*Doesn’t really explain blends of two or more of the four different mindsets, either.
neoconservatives may be moralists, but the other half of the Wilsonian equation is an internationalist orientation …
then it would seem to follow that another terrorist attack on US soil will, in point of fact, guarantee Bush the election, unless Kerry successfully demonstrates before then that he is both able and willing to wage an effective WoT.
I actually have an opposite take on this one — and I’m going to enjoy this blog-time conversation, I think. But I gotta do some “real” work this week before I get to it.
then it would seem to follow that another terrorist attack on US soil will, in point of fact, guarantee Bush the election, unless Kerry successfully demonstrates before then that he is both able and willing to wage an effective WoT.
I actually have an opposite take on this one — and I’m going to enjoy this blog-time conversation, I think. But I gotta do some “real” work this week before I get to it.
Sorry for the double post. Blame it on my wireless connection.
another major terror attack would tear this country apart.
Before Madrid, I would’ve gone with the conventional wisdom of “the closer any attack comes to the election, the more it helps Bush.” But between the Spanish reaction and the 9/11 commission, it’s a complete crap shoot. I don’t think anyone’s got any real idea how this country’s going to react to another attack, beyond sheer panic.
Though I fault much of the WH’s performance, I believe the admin has responsibly told us that it’s hard to stop terror and that another strike is possible – hence I think that any medium-term political advantage would very likely go to Bush. It seems to me that even if Kerry had been saying we need to put more emphasis into X, and alQ exploited X, the argument would be hard to make after the tragedy and during the consequent military action.
I shudder to write this, but I assume both Bush and Kerry have elements of next/11 speeches prepared.
“A curious thing seems to have happened since Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown in Iraq. America no longer feels like a country at war.”
Why is it that I look at that sentence and my first thought is,”It takes a special kind of idiot to write something like that.” I mean who beat this guy with senseless with the stupid stick. Jebesus freakin Chris.
My problem with the model is that it’s an injustice to the presidents named, each of whom possessed more policy nuance than your average George Bush.
Moe, you are quoting the right-wing play book when you express doubts about Kerry’s ability or willingness to advance the WoT. Course, he will have to deal with the Bush’s Iraq fiasco, straighten out Bush’s fiscal disaster, and try to convince the world community that America isn’t crazy.
But wait, Kerry might not utter ridiculous Dirty Harry type comments about the bad guy of the month so therefore he probably won’t succeed despite the fact he’s serious, intelligent, experienced and has seen the elephant, none of which you say about our C+ Augustus.
And Fabius, you’re quoting the left-wing playbook when you describe a this President as unserious, unintelligent and inexperienced. I’ll give you the last one of course as its based on fact. The rest is just so much drivel. But,from what I’ve seen, that too is right out of the left-wing playbook.*
*Not that I tar all lefties with that brand. Just you on this occasion.
OK, crionna. I withdraw my above description of Bush. I will say that I would have felt much less confident in the truth value of my comment if I had stated the opposite.
Fabius wrote:
My problem with the model names is that both Jackson and Wilson were horrible presidents.
Actually, it is more that Kerry has a track record of being on the wrong side of most national security issues and like much of his base, seems to be be stuck in a mindset where he is still protesting the Vietnam War.
By not funding the troops and insulting our allies who are actually helping.
With another $900 Billion health care entitlement on top of all-ready too high levels of spending all while refusing to deal with the entitlement time bomb.
Yet many members of the “world community” have agreed to help us out in both Iraq and Afghanistan while four members of the “world community” have agreed to participate in multi-lateral negotiations with North Korea. Funny that they would agree to do any of that if the really thought that we were “crazy.”
Naw, he’ll just spout out silly Jesse Jacksonesque rhymes punctuated with the occasional F-bomb and “you SOB” to the men who have vowed to take a bullet if need be to protect him and his family.
Bob Kerry, yes. John Kerry, not hardly.
And this is supposed to make up for his voting record, how exactly?
My problem with the model names is that both Jackson and Wilson were horrible presidents.
Yet still better than Bush. I’m not a fan of Jackson but I admire the way he cut short an early move for Southern secession. And I thought that Wilson was all the craze with the new conservatives. You must not be one.
Kerry has a track record of being on the wrong side of most national security issues
No, he doesn’t.
like much of his base, seems to be be stuck in a mindset where he is still protesting the Vietnam War.
No, we don’t. Though, if obsession with Viet Nam is really a problem that sword cuts both ways.
With another $900 Billion health care entitlement on top of all-ready too high levels of spending all while refusing to deal with the entitlement time bomb.
I bet you a dollar the economy does better under Kerry. It almost always does under Dems. My personal theory is that when you emphasize jobs the rest just happens. I don’t know about Kerry but I would like to give American companies the same advantage as their foreign competitors – relief from the burden of keeping their workers healthy. See, I’m pro-business.
Naw, he’ll just spout out silly Jesse Jacksonesque rhymes punctuated with the occasional F-bomb and “you SOB” to the men who have vowed to take a bullet if need be to protect him and his family.
I wasn’t there. He might have smiled when he called him a son-of-a-bitch.
And this is supposed to make up for his voting record, how exactly?
Competent leadership.
No
Oh, and Thorley, by evoking Jesse Jachson you’ve reminded me that almost all Dems orate better than Bush. And they know what they are talking about.
… another terrorist attack on US soil will, in point of fact, guarantee Bush the election,…..
Moe,
Interestin’ observation. Obviously, even idiotic partisans like Kos, would opt for an attack-free 04′ — even if it meant reelecting Bush — rather than another terrible attack, that fueled the seeds of a Kerry election. At least, I hope they would.
But, after 9/11, I recall thinking that if GW doesn’t stabilize the situation, he’ll lose in ’04. And if (God forbid) we got hit again, under his watch, he’d lose in ’04. Voters would not stand for a president who couldn’t protect his own people.
I’m not sayin’ the CONVERSE is necessarily true, eg, No subsequent attacks = Bush re-election. But I think it’s a high correlation.
So, my gut instinct is that if we have another 9/11 prior to election (again, God forbid), voters will blame Bush for focusing on Iraq, rather than Al Queda. And this will propel Kerry’s political fortunes to the White House.
It is sad that politics has become all tangled-up in security issues, but, alas, that’s life.
As for me, I’m gonna vote for the man who can best protect this country. If Kerry had sufficiently demonstrated this ability, despite his excess liberalism on numerous fronts, I’d vote for him.
But, at this point in time, IMHO, Bush decisively gets the nod over Kerry on this critical issue.
Interestin’ observation. Obviously, even idiotic partisans like Kos, would opt for an attack-free 04′ — even if it meant reelecting Bush — rather than another terrible attack, that fueled the seeds of a Kerry election. At least, I hope they would.
That could use a touch of clarification.
An attack-free 2004, even if it meant reelecting Bush, AND meant that we would actually be better protected AFTER that fact, which would mean Bush would have to stop focussing on the nonsense he is now and shift gears into actually plugging up the holes in our ports, borders, etc. Bush as he is now, even with a terror-free election year, is worse for the country in the long run, and then the statement is not supportable.
Navy, is there anything Kerry could have done to convince you? Is there a hawkish Dem you would vote for? Is there anything Kerry could do now to convince you?
Rikefan wrote:
Rikefan’s pleading raises what I think is an interesting point – that most of Kerry’s “appeal” (besides the ABB crowd) is not about anything that Kerry is for or necessarily anything that he would or could do differently than Bush, but rather based on the hope that he is pretty much lying when he says that “principle difference will be almost everything” between his and Bush’s approach to foreign policy and that if elected he would pretty much stay the course. We’re supposed to hope that despite his vote on the $87 Billion and his insulting of our allies, he really would stay to finish the job in Iraq. We’re supposed to hope that despite adopting the failed Clinton-Carter policy with North Korea, he really would try a multilateral approach like Bush, etc.
It’s sort of like how some of the “divided government” proponents have a cunning plan to vote for Kerry not because he is more “fiscally responsible” – he’s clearly not – at least for those of us who look at little things like voting records and policy proposals to see who it is that wants to spend more money and does (not) want to deal with entitlement programs – but rather that they are hoping that Republicans will be able to counteract the $260 Billion a year that he wants to add to spending (unlikely unless Tom Delay becomes a pre-1995 Newt Gingrich/Richard Army) and we’ll wind up with gridlock (which only means that we waste another four years with no entitlement reform).
In other words, we are expected to consider voting for Kerry in the hopes that he is not what he is pretending to be now or that he really will not be able to do the things he says he wants to do if elected.
Thorley, you mischaracterize my post as “a pleading”. Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but people on different sides of issues may be interested in what their opposites have to say. (Admittedly I ceased being interested in what you have to say quite a while ago, but Navy I find worth listening to.)
Rikefan,
I like questions! Fire away (but you still gotta be nice to Thorley!)
1. is there anything Kerry could have done to convince you?
Maybe a spine transplant:) Just kidding.
Yes. I thought Lieberman was principled and correct about security issues. So, if Kerry were more like Lieberman.
2. Is there a hawkish Dem you would vote for?
Besides Zell? Hee-Hee.
For Prez, he would really have to buck the party. For example, I voted for McCain in 2000 primaries, and tried (valiantly) to convince my vast circle of wing-nut friends and colleagues to do the same — to little avail.
Now, I like the parts of many Dems, but the only whole Dems I respect on National Security are Lieberman & Miller & Bob Kerrey.
3. Is there anything Kerry could do now to convince you?
This would help: Lead the majority of Dems that a successful war effort in Iraq transcends politics, is vital to stability in the Middle East, and will make the world a much safer place.
Navy, will my return to ignoring Thorley satisfy you?
I think re 3) that Kerry is doing what he can.
If Kerry runs with McCain as VP (presumably after a lot of negotiating on the plank and the division of responsibility), would you consider voting for him?
(I like this ticket; I like McCain, though I disagree with him about many issues and wish he wouldn’t grandstand on baseball; I like the idea of a national unity govt [at least on terrorism issues].)
R,
Hmmm. How ’bout McCain-Kerry?
That’s probably as much as I could endure:)
Navy Davy wrote:
That is quite all right; I generally ignore Rikefan as well and only responded to his post as it presented an opportunity to address a larger issue. It is interesting that in trying to persuade people to vote for Kerry, that their argument hinges mostly on the hope that he is either lying about what he intends to do or really will not be able to do it if elected.
“Moe, you are quoting the right-wing play book when you express doubts about Kerry’s ability or willingness to advance the WoT.”
That is not what I said. I said that IF you assume A, and IF B happens, THEN C will result (contra conventional wisdom) UNLESS Kerry accomplishes D first. I also said that I’m not sure that I believe A in the first place. Believe it or not, actual thinking goes into my posts.
Thanks, Navy.
Moe, could you comment on his 4:07 and 5:37 comments?
“Moe, could you comment on his 4:07 and 5:37 comments?”
Just this once? Sure.
4:07: Damned if I know who’s right – Michael Totten or Navy Davy (and I expected another successful attack by now, so I’m useless as a prophet). The only thing that I think everybody here would agree upon is that it’s be wonderful if this stayed a theoretical question.
As for the 5:37 questions: the only candidate that I was even willing to contemplate voting for was Lieberman, which answers the other two questions as well. That being said, should (God forbid) disaster strike a hypothetical Kerry administration I am sure that he will at least muddle through (of course, I would much prefer that there be no disasters at all)…