COLUMN: Democrats may provide defensive alternatives
In politics, often perceptions define reality. It is not surprising then that politicians of all colors use these (mis)perceptions to their advantage, as they vie for public support. In a recent Gallup Poll posting, a majority of Americans expressed the view that a Republican administration would handle better the war on terror. This same majority trusted the Democratic Party when it came to handling the economy, taxes, healthcare, environment and the education, among others. Unfortunately, there are no easy clear-cut answers to why and how perceptions are formed, yet it is possible in this case to dispel any fallacious notions that somehow the Democratic Party is weaker on national defense and the war on terror.
The comment is sometimes made that the Democratic Party does not favor a strong military or a viable national defense. That is not true. It is amply clear that the military build-up of the Kennedy years was only matched by the Reagan era, to only dissipate during the first Bush administration.
Then, despite claims to the contrary, during the Clinton presidency military expenditures and build-up were substantial considering the lack of major conflicts in the world and the status of the United States as the sole superpower. This military supremacy was amply demonstrated during the campaigns in the Balkans and elsewhere, where it was met in awe by our allies and enemies alike. And all of this was achieved without getting the country in a huge budget deficit. That is the question Americans must ask themselves. Is superiority vis-Ã -vis other actors measured by only the strength of its military, or by the level of economic and social prosperity? The answer is clear, as a country’s economic development continues to advance, so will its ability to protect itself and maintain a strong military. Focusing only on the strength of the military, without properly buttressing the economy, would only bring economic distress, much like what the United States is experiencing presently and will continue to experience in the future, unless something is done rather soon about the record $500-billion-budget deficit.
Moreover, the criticism that the Democrats are weak on the war on terror is simply misguided and spurious. To the contrary, the Democrats believe that it is the current administration that is unnecessarily endangering the country by involving it in unjustifiable escapades that are conducted in the name of national security yet exposing it to even more terrorist threats here at home.
The field of Democratic presidential candidates is a clear demonstration of the kind of alternatives that the Democratic Party has to offer in this respect. Among others, John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, and a Democratic presidential hopeful, believes that the Bush administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland.
By involving the country in an unnecessary war in Iraq, Bush has squandered funds and resources that could have been used far more effectively for defending our homeland. Defending the homeland against terrorism requires more than an orange code. It requires providing those in the front lines here in the United States with the adequate means to prevent and respond effectively to any terrorist attacks.
Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, who became the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in 1997 and was also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command and as such knows a thing or two about wars and conflicts, is another critic of the current administration’s mishandling of the post-Sept. 11 situation both domestically and internationally. According to him, “Terrorism is a multilateral problem. You cannot defeat it in one nation. You need international police work, teamwork, international harmonization of laws against terror, a whole series of things. You act unilaterally, you lose the commitment of your allies to make it work. That’s the one thing that will kill you in the war on terrorism.”
Clearly, the question of who has the domain on matters of national security is far from settled. Whereas our perceptions do not always coincide with the reality, one would do well to thoroughly examine and compare choices placed before them. Isn’t democracy great?
Medlir Mema is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to medlirm@cc.usu.edu.