Smacking down the "Dems weak on defense" meme

Politics & Elections
1

It’s no secret that for decades the Right has demonized Democrats as soft on defense, unable or unwilling to protect the nation, even traitors and enemies to the country. It’s been a viciously effective line of attack, playing as it does on primal emotions, the preferred tool of demagogues.

It wasn’t always thus; I doubt anyone would have seriously thought JFK, for example, was a weakling on defense; but the Vietnam War and its hippie protestors provided a propaganda bonanza to the GOP, and they’ve been working it for all it’s worth (which is a lot) ever since.

And then came Obama, and the rightwing propagandists rubbed their hands in unholy glee. The propaganda practically wrote itself!

But a funny thing happened on the way to the demonization. Obama refused to play along. He kept Gates at Defense, for example (much to the vocal dismay of many on the left). He didn’t cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan (more left dismay); rather, he took the measure of both conflicts and dealt with each as it seemed best after thorough, painstaking review. He faced down the generals’ attempts to undermine him over policy with swift, smooth dexterity.

The meme of Dems = weak on defense was and is still out there, of course. But on Saturday night, my belief is it took a wound that could cripple, perhaps even kill it. I think it is possible that Obama taking out bin Laden may – I say MAY – go a long way to reverse public perceptions of the Dems as soft on defending this country.

It seems to me that that line of attack began, in fact, to lose some steam when those Somali pirates got their heads blown off. The Limbaugh types had been braying for days about how Obama would coddle the terrorists. Then, suddenly, KABLOOIE! And the strident yammering stuttered to a confused muttering. No, it didn’t stop, it didn’t go away, it’s in the GOP playbook, chapter one; hell, it’s in the current GOP DNA; but a lot of the power seeped out of it.

And now a Dem got Osama bin Laden, the personification of evil in this country’s political narrative for a decade. Obama, the Kenyan socialist usurper, got bin Laden! The right-wing spinmeisters can flail at it with all their might, but all across this country people are thanking President Obama for protecting the nation. That’s a huge shift in perceptions. Can you hear the tectonic plates groaning as they inch into new configurations? I think I can.

And why is taking down bin Laden such a big deal that this could happen? Many reasons can be advanced, but this I believe is part of it: As long as he was out there sneering nyah nyah, I stuck it to you and you can’t get me, he was a morale-booster for those who hate us and a constant infuriating reminder of our apparent impotence. Taking him out the way it was done resolved both negatives, swiftly, thoroughly, and with a calm steely competence that I think almost all can admire, even those (I am not one) who feel queasy about putting down even a mad dog.

How did you feel when our President demolished Trump at the dinner? It was hilarious, yes, but wasn’t there also a sense of quiet satisfaction, of justice being done, that a despicable bully had been so thoroughly, so masterfully and decisively put in his place by his long-suffering target? That’s part of why so many people, me included, have been walking around ever since the news about bin Laden broke with a huge grin on our faces. I can’t help it, I’m not even consciously thinking about it and my face rears up into a satisfied smile.

So, consider this – President Obama has not only scored a national defense triumph that the Republicans failed for seven long years to achieve; he’s done it in a way that reaches right down into the emotional gut of a lot of people. That’s got to suck mass quantities of oxygen out of the weak-on-defense meme, because it gets to people at the same emotional level where the destructive memes do their vicious work.

Obama swatted Osama into oblivion like a fly, and folks are going to absorb this way down in the reptile brain where the right-wing propagandists target their fear attacks.

2

Actually it was a significant issue in Kennedy’s time. Even back in the sixties, Democrats had to run against the perception that Republicans were “national defense” party. So Kennedy, like many other Democrats, had to be hawkier than the hawks.

I think the perception originated with Truman, of all people. The man who presided over the defeat of Germany and Japan, dropped the atom bombs, founded NATO, faced down the Soviets in Berlin, Greece, and Turkey, and send troops into Korea. You’d think if anyone had secure credentials on defense it would be Truman. But in his own time, he was accused of having given up too much to the Soviets after WWII, having lost China, not going “all out” in Korea, and of having allowed the Soviets to infiltrate the American government.

3

Whether one likes or hates Obama, the success of the bin Laden operation is going to cause folks to assess him differently than before. I imagine Republicans running around like ants now, wondering what the heck they can do to take Obama down. They’re already spinning the operation as a success for Bush. It’s so predictably sad.

A colleague of mine asked if the party will nominate Alan Keyes to run against Obama. I actually laughed out loud. “If they do that” I said, “you know they’ve conceded 2012.”

An Obama second term is not a fait accompli. It’s a long time until November 2012 and anything can happen. That said, unless Romney can somehow get the nomination; no small feat there, I don’t see a real challenger for Obama.

The following Republicans have been mentioned as possible contenders. I broke them into groups based on my thoughts on what they’ll do:

Gingrich - Running. Possible chance at the nomination if Romney doesn’t run.
Pawlenty - Running. No chance at the nomination.
Santorum - Running. No chance at the nomination.
Paul (Ron) - Running. No chance at the nomination.

Romney - Possibly running, although I see him not wanting yet another failed attempt on his record and therefore waiting until 2016. I also question whether he can win over the Republican base.
Huckabee - Possibly running. No chance at the nomination.
Bachman - Possibly running. No chance at the nomination.
Daniels - Possibly running, but he’s let himself get boxed into a corner by signing tea party backed legislation. Little chance at the nomination.

Palin - Doubtful, but she may do it to remain in the spotlight, then drop out citing some ridiculous reason. No chance at the nomination.

Trump - Not running
Paul (Rand) - Not running
Bush (Jeb) - Not running
Giuliani - Not running

Barbour - Already dropped out

The last 48 hours has cast the tried and true strategy for a successful Republican campaign against Democrats, not just Obama, into doubt. Although critique of Obama’s foreign policy acumen probably isn’t going to be a big part of whichever Republican gets the nomination, it will be a notch in Obama’s belt they are going to have to address at some point. How they do it without lying or seeming petulant will be interesting.

4

You can count on Obama’s weaknesses, to the extent they can be exploited, involving mostly domestic issues riding on certain specific things:

  1. the fear of socialism
  2. that the economy isn’t better
  3. that Obama hasn’t solved our energy problems for us
  4. various coded phrases that are really all about white fear

I don’t think foreign policy issues are going to be talked about as much.

5

  1. Most Republicans don’t even know the definition of the word socialism. It’s been drilled into their heads that it’s a bad thing, so they believe it, even though every one of them directly benefits from social policies.

  2. The economy is better and continues to improve. Even at its slow pace, a net improvement will redound to Obama.

  3. It is utterly simple-minded to believe that (a) Obama can solve the energy problems, and (b) they’d be solved in 4 years.

  4. I’ll give you that one because, at its core, I believe a lot of the hatred of Obama from the right stems from racism.

6

Sadly, the average voter is utterly simple-minded. And paying $4 - $5 a gallon for gas is really the only thing they are likely to consider when thinking about energy problems.

7

I am doubtful. That would mean people actually evaluate evidence and change their minds based on real-world conditions.

That’s crazy talk. How many of the birthers have given up their came since the latest birth certificate?

8

Besides, this whole “bin Laden dead” thing just gives Trump more material:

does anyone in the whole NSA-group actually remember Obama? How did he get into that group in the photo anyway? Has the written order to Panetta to find and kill bin Laden been released? (The actual order, with Obama’s signature, not a photocopy, of course.) Has Panetta acknowledged receving this order? When? Where? And why didn’t Obama curse more in wording the official order? What kind of a leader would avoid saying “Kill the motherfucker, Leon, kill him fucking dead”?

9

What I have learnt from countless Jimmy Carter threads is that being a good helicopter mechanic is the most important part of being POTUS.:dubious:

And again, a helicopter broke down. Based on my experience on countless Ronald Reagan threads, had this happened on the watch of a Republican president, both helicopters had come back. :wink:

10

Good point, but I was talking about potential presidential contenders. You’re correct that your average tea party type voter probably won’t weigh evidence or assess facts, being content to be told what to think by conservative talk show hosts. However, a serious candidate doesn’t have such a luxury and must live in the real world to some extent and, I believe, that means reevaluating their planning and tactics vis-a-vis Obama.

11

Yeh, foreign policy will be a dead end for whoever the GOP put up against the Badass in Chief, for sure, unless there’s some horrific blunder before the election; but given the careful deliberation rather than cowboy heedlessness shown so far, I think that’s a low-probability concern.

As to your number one issue, I suspect the GOP have cut their own throats on that by overreaching with Ryan’s slash-and-burn-the-net budget. Its smoldering shreds are going to be hung around the neck of every Republican candidate in 2012, you betcha!

As to your number two, check out this graph from Gallup.

Number three is a bitch, true, and the kind of long-term solutions that Obama is pursuing won’t help much in the short term; we’ll just have to see how that plays out. I don’t think it’s enough on its own to boost whatever lamb the GOP nominate out of the slaughter pen.

Number four? Haters gonna hate, and Obama won last time without them; I doubt his campaign will lose much sleep over them.

12

Adding, too late for the Edit button: If y’all haven’t encountered P.M. Carpenter’s Commentary yet, hie thee over there and take a look. Here’s his morning-after look at the bin Laden effect for the GOP.

13

Oy. Amazing, isn’t it? I was born in 1949, and was just a kid during McCarthyism, was in junior high during JFK’s administration, so was naively clueless about such things then. Should’ve done more historical research before writing this, eh? I guess the John Birch wing of the Republicans has been poisoning the well even longer than I thought.

14

All it will take is one attack. The idea that Bush/Obama/Whoever is the one ‘keeping us safe’ is patently absurd–our safety depends on a lot of work, yes, but also on a *lot *of luck. An energized anti-American base getting lucky just once and the entirety of the carnage will fall on Barak’s administration, from direct ‘bin Laden was marginalized; Obma’s useless hit caused this attack’ to ‘his cuts and demoralizing of the military allowed this to happen’. None of these will depend on logic or analysis, of course, but a single strike will reinvigorate the GOP and it’s (empty) claim that the Democrats are weak on defense much more than any potential bounce Osama’s killing gave.

For a multitude of reasons I hope this doesn’t come to pass.

15

Nobody sane wants a modern Sparta, a hyper-militarized state. But Republicans typically feel more comfortable a few clicks closer to such a state than do Democrats.

That’s enough for them to feel Dems are weak on defense - and the numbers and policy choices don’t really matter. It’s spiritual weakness.

God and Country is a key phrase to mark the contrast. Libs and mods see them as two entities - god mostly a private matter, country inside a matrix of interests including people, economy, polity, and world. Many conservatives see G & C as not just paramount, but inseparable.

16

Mis-read this as “a few dicks closer…” and found that an accurate and colorful way to describe Pubbie thought, such as it is…

17

…or the movie ‘300’.

18

Might be one of the things they don’t like to admit they admire about Sparta.

19

There’s an excellent analysis of the bin Laden effect on 2012 in one of the comments to a Nate Silver posting:

20

The Dems are much more blood thirsty than the Republicans. Just look at the history. WWI, WWII, Korea, the juiciest bits of Vietnam, East Timor, and the juiciest bits of the Iraq sanctions. The only big body counts the Pubs can hang their hats on are Nixon and Dubya.