COLUMN: National security, Liberal style
I will illustrate how to properly frame the political debate using the national security issue specifically that of the national security for today’s lecture. Bear in mind that space constraints limit how in depth I can get on the domestic security issue, which is really okay because the objective of this lesson is the introduction debate repositioning techniques, specifically values.
Why national security, then, instead of gay marriage? Because it’s one of the few cards that Republicans can still pull that could carry any weight-even immigration has lost it flare.
The unfortunate reality is that reality plays a minor role in politics; it is the perception of reality that truly matters. We Liberals could stand to learn a lesson or two from our conservative brothers. As important as it is to have sound reasoning behind a political initiative we’ve been coming up short in elections because we fail to frame the debate in terms of values.
While decidedly liberal, I would not pretend that all conservative ideas are bad or that all Liberal ideas are good. But when the White House would have us believe that we are fighting in Iraq to keep terror off our doorsteps, that’s enough. The first step is to dissolve that perceived reality with reason before attempting to substitute your own.
“There is simply no way possible to overstate how Iraq has subverted our efforts to free the world from global terror,” John Kerry has said. According to a recent National Intelligence Estimate, “[the] invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Once the failings of their former ideology are realized we must present our Democratic alternative utilizing universal ethics. As Democrats we call for an exit strategy for Iraq, complete with a timescale. We can then redeploy our troops back to Afghanistan where they are needed. We should leave specialists to finish training Iraq’s security force and UN peace keeping troops to prevent invasion.
Thwart attempts to reclaim conservatives. In Iraq our opponents call for “staying the course,” remind them that persistence in failure is not victory. While addressing Iraq we must diminish our dependence on foreign oil, reinforce national defense and implement the bipartisan measures presented in the 9/11 Commission Report. We must distribute money to areas more likely to be targets of terrorism and we must bring moral leadership back to America again.
Remind your friend that the Democratic Party has already sought to implement this kind of change by proposing a number of measures that would increase funding to the Coast Guard and to FEMA; we fought for the funding to better secure our ports, airports, railways and other transportation systems. We called for a complete overhaul of the communication systems that failed on September 11 and that failed in the wake of Katrina. Remind your friend that all of these strengthening bills proposed by Democrats were shot down by Republicans.
Good ideas are just not enough. It seems, in order to get them implemented we are going to have to be just a little more Republican. Frame the debate in terms of values. We believe in inalienable rights and that torture is fundamentally wrong. We are for honest leadership that isn’t manipulated by big business. We support our Constitutional rights and will not sacrifice them. If we love God, we love him enough to lower him to the circus of politics. We are pro-family-all families. And ultimately, we are for human dignity, opportunity and personal liberties.
Class dismissed.
Matthew Blackham is a junior majoring in sociology. Comments can be sent to matblackham@cc.usu.edu.