Fear not, unbeliever. You need not fail.

by

It is not often that one goes to the head of Amnesty International for sound, practical advice regarding political campaigning. But, here you are:

It’s a serious problem. It means that human rights advocates are seen solely as harping critics. We certainly need to be that; it’s a very important role. But if we fail to engage with the very real, hard decisions that governments have to make about protecting the safety of their citizens, then we’ll be dismissed as charlatans, or ideologues who are out of step with reality.

From Salon (subscription required), found via Glenn Reynolds. Replace “human rights advocates” with “Democrats,” and you have my thinking on Democratic party and its current field of candidates.

We know the Bush plan: all offense, all defense, all the time. We know the disadvantages of the Bush plan: It’s expensive — in money, lives, and civil liberties. But no Democratic candidate, and certainly not the party, has enunciated a clear alternative. And, no, it’s not an excuse that the Democrats are out-of-power — Newt Gingrich, was out of power, and he managed to enunciate a plan from Congress. If Democrats want to win the presidency, they have to give us something to vote for. They gotta give us that vision thingy.

UPDATE: Colleague Katherine notes that she previously blogged on the Salon piece, though she didn’t draw (and doesn’t now agree with) my eminently reasonable extension of said piece to the current field of Democrats. So go read her post — just remember that I am right and she is wrong.

7 thoughts on “Fear not, unbeliever. You need not fail.”

  1. Hey, I linked to that piece in my third post!
    Why does you like Glenn Reynolds more than me?
    🙂 To be fair, I didn’t summarize the main argument.
    I disagree with your characterization of both Bush and the Democrats, though I don’t disagree that we need a better vision thingy.
    I’m going to write a response to this sometime in the next 24 hours.

  2. Hey, I linked to that piece in my third post!
    Why does you like Glenn Reynolds more than me?
    Whoops, Katherine, I just plum-out missed it. Correcting it via update now.

  3. I’m not sure it’s accurate to suggest the Dems have offered no alternative, tho’ the latter is surely leavened by the fact that for many the original alternative was to avoid the unilateral invasion in the first place (you know the reasons), but now, given Bush’s actions, we’re dealing with a different problem altogether, one of his making, and while it’s obviously important to make sure everyone knows that, yes, the Dems need their own strategy for Iraq. And the irony? Much of it — accelerated timetable, a true international coalition — will probably be coopted by the desperate Shrub Gang sooner or later anyway.
    Hey, no one ever said it was going to be easy. And please, enuf Reynolds cites. As noted elsewhere, he’s the John Grisham of the blogosphere. A guilty pleasure, at best. A dishonest hack at the worst. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

  4. Hey, no one ever said it was going to be easy. And please, enuf Reynolds cites. As noted elsewhere, he’s the John Grisham of the blogosphere. A guilty pleasure, at best. A dishonest hack at the worst. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
    As one who aspires to dishonest hackery, I take offense.
    No, Harely, you make a good point regarding how the sands have shifted (and are continuing to shift) beneath the feet of the Democrats. That makes their job tougher, but it doesn’t excuse them from offering an alternative. I, for one, am not voting for anyone who can’t tell me what positive steps they plan to take to keep me safe.

  5. Von, okay, but taking positive steps to keep you safe is a very large umbrella, and much of it — most of it? — has nothing to do with Iraq. Invading Iraq did not make you safer. Occupying Iraq will not make you safer. This doesn’t give the Dems a pass when it comes to an Iraq strategy. But confusing Iraq with Homeland Security is a shell game the Bush admin. has been playing from the first day. And that shell game’s success is the key to his re-election, so expect more of it in the future. In the meantime, we’d all be best advised not to fall for it, and to focus on exactly what you highlighted: the need for positive steps to keep us all safer.

  6. oh, and speaking of plans, Clark offered some specifics just before absolutely leveling a Fox Talking Head Douche Bag (that’s not fair, feminine hygiene products deserve better) for distorting his criticism of the Iraq mission. Great stuff. Link at Talking Points Memo.

Comments are closed.