by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 5, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

roving it's up to the task, the Democratic Party 2004 platform spends half the 63-page document on national security, promising to fight and win the war on terror. Reflecting presumptive nominee Sen. John F. Kerry's (D-Mass.) worry that Democrats look weak on defense, the platform goes overboard flexing the Party's national security muscles. With November's election expected to turn on Bush's Iraq policy, Democrats want to head off criticism about defense policy. Blaming President Bush for his “rush to war,” the platform criticizes the White House for mangling international alliances, ignoring the United Nations and launching a dangerous preemptive war policy. “We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a have for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East,” read the draft, displaying few differences with Republicans.

      Pandering to crossover Republicans and independents, Democrats can't decide which side of the fence helps their cause. Former Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), like former candidate Gov. Howard Dean and Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, wants an unequivocal end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Kerry worries that such a position would alienate crossovers and independents, dooming his candidacy, regardless of his running mate. With the sacrifices already made, it's difficult to follow Kucinich and Nader's call for an immediate withdrawal. For those opposed to the war, Kerry's approach offers little comfort, other than commitments to stronger international alliances. Kerry expressed his views in the Washington Post, Sunday, July 4 op-ed page: “On the economic front, that means giving them fair access to the multimillion-dollar reconstruction contracts.”

      Kerry's approach recognizes the only sure way to get key allies on the same page. Cutting them into lucrative reconstructive projects and offering special oil deals gives incentives to otherwise disgruntled allies. Kerry is showing “a stunning disregard for America's allies,” said Bush-Cheney spokesman Scott Stanzel, rejecting the idea that the current “coalition of the willing” isn't sufficient. With France, Germany and Russia on the outs, the current international coalition lacks credibility. Kerry's idea of giving them profitable reconstruction projects and oil wealth is long overdue. Cutting France, Germany and Russia in paves the way for a practical exit strategy, transitioning Iraq's security to a competent multinational force. Keeping the security burden onto U.S. forces not only drains the treasury and costs unnecessary lives but it leaves the military spread too thin.

      Emphasizing national security attempts stave off GOP complaints—specifically attacks by Vice President Dick Cheney—that Kerry is weak on defense. Creating a party platform to counteract Republican complaints leaves Democrats looking spineless. Instead of rubber-stamping GOP positions, Democrats should stake out morally defensible positions. Criticizing Bush's Iraq policies, but, at the same time, committing to the same policies, gives voters little reason to make a switch. Why upend the incumbent when the challenger holds the same views. “Today, we face three great challenges above all others—first, to win the global war against terror; second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, starting with a peaceful and stable Iraq,” the draft said, sounding more like a White House talking points.

      Adopting GOP policies discourages mainstream liberals from supporting the party platform. Winning the global war on terror is precisely Bush's excuse for invading Iraq. It makes no sense to blame the White House for chasing weapons of mass destruction and, at the same time, endorse same strategy. If the war was based on Ahmad Chalabi's phony intelligence, then chasing WMD was a feeble excuse. Fighting the global war on terror has little to do with toppling Iraq, a country posing no threat to U.S. national security. Committing the U.S. to halting proliferation of WMD lends the exact justification used by the administration to justify preemptive war. Promoting democracy had little to do with the White House's initial rationale for preemptive war. Only after WMD weren't found did Bush adopt his fallback excuse. Going after banned weapons, promoting democracy and fighting terror are all GOP positions.

      Playing a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse, Democrats must do more than rubber-stamp GOP positions. Fighting the war on terror, hunting down weapons of mass destruction, pushing democracy and promoting a stable peace all validate the GOP agenda. Voters can't make any distinction when Democrats essentially endorse the Republican platform. Even liberal John Kerry expressed his opposition to abortion, a medical procedure most liberals want government out of the picture. “It was important this not be grab-bag of policies nor simply an indictment,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), yet Democratic positions show uncanny similarity to the GOP. Judging by the Democratic Party platform, there's little difference with Republicans. Unless voters get a clear picture before the election, they'll either choose to stay home or leave the incumbent in place.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.