"A Party Without Principles"?
That's what Sebastian Mallaby calls the Democratic party after observing its latest machinations in connection with the vote on the border fence, the vote on treatment of detainees, and attempts at social security reform.
I hope it's more than a matter of semantics to say that I would describe the Democrats less as a party without principles, and more as a party without principles it feels comfortable advocating. The underlying problem for the Dems is that they hold a much darker view of America than most Americans have and, relatedly, they are much less willing to back the use of force and other aggressive tactics to assert American interests.
Republicans are also out-of-step with American opinion on certain matters. Most notably, they are more pro-business than most Americans. However, they feel no real need to conceal this from voters. Instead, they argue that business interests generally coincide (or at least are not inconsistent) with the general interest.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the matters as to which they are out of step are more existential. It's just not a good move to argue that America is a seriously flawed country, or that it suffers from deep malaise. Thus, the Democrats feel pulled both to take positions that are largely consistent with their world view and to hide that view from the public.
This explains the frequent contortions that cause Mallaby to believe the party lacks principles. Consider Bill Clinton's statement regarding the congressional vote on the first Iraq war -- "the minority [opposition to the war] had the better arguments, but I would have voted with the majority if [the vote] was close." Or, in the same tradition of cynical voting on matters of war and peace, consider how John Kerry was against the war before he was for it (or is it the other way around). Or the latest example -- the vote on detainee treatment -- in which, as Mallaby says, the Senate Dems voted against the administration's bill on the theory that it violates core principles of what America should stand for, but nonetheless allowed the measure to pass.
The key question, though, is whether the Democrats would behave this way if they were in power. One would hope that, if they had the primary responsibility for protecting the national security, their behavior would improve substantially. But there are two reasons to doubt that it would. First, the Democrats' conflicted behavior, as described above, is not simply the product of obstructionist behavior by an out-of-power party. As I said, I think it's rooted in a dark view of America. And, while it's much easier to think well of a country that votes for you, that dark view won't vanish if Democrats regain power.
Second, we should consult recent experience. Jimmy Carter's uniquely disastrous presidency can only be understood by his view of America as, at best, a morally ambiguous nation whose power is best left unused except for purely humanitarian purposes. Indeed, Carter's presidency was not particularly conflicted. Rather, it was mostly a principled "restrain the irresponsible American giant" presidency.
Clinton figured out that the Democrats couldn't hold power by wearing their ambivalence about the country on their sleeves. Yet his presidency too was plagued by an unwillingess to use force against our most dangerous enemies -- this time manifested by the "for it but not really for it" approach that, as noted above, he invented on the eve of the first Iraq war.
Thus, even the person Clinton designated to defend his record, Richard Clarke, can do no better than to argue that Clinton wanted to take out bin Laden but faced constraints on his freedom to act -- he had been a draft dodger; he would be accused of "wag the dog;" the CIA, the FBI, and the military were all against him. But Clinton was the commander-in-chief, and no one could have constrained him from taking out bin Laden, if that's what he really wanted to do.
The real constraint on Clinton was the same thing that constrains his party -- deep ambivalence about using force to protect this country. And that ambivalence is something like a principle.
