Hillary and the War

Michael Crowley has an article in the latest New Republic - "Hillary and the War: The Real Reason She Won't Apologize" - that reaches the stunning conclusion that - hold on to your hat - Hillary vote in favor of the war in 2002 and is reluctant to repudiate that vote today because of, of all things, principle! Good God, this goes against everything I've ever been taught about the woman!

Seems she believe(d,s) two things: (1) Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the United States, hence wielding the threat of war to support diplomatic efforts to disarm him was a reasonable policy; (2) Congress in general ought to defer to presidents in matters of national security.

These are not entirely unreasonable propositions (#2 needs to be modified in light of experience: a president who is utterly dishonest and irresponsible loses the right to a deferent Congress). These views were shaped, claims Crowley, by her experience in the White House. Saddam was a constant thorn in the side of the Clinton Administration, of course, and a big chunk of his attention was devoted to maintaining sanctions and using force and threats of force to keep inspectors in Iraq. And the Republican Congress refused to defer to Clinton's authority in matters of national security in matters such as Bosnia and the airstrikes against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan.

Which brings up something that has been simmering in my head for awhile now. Generally speaking, I submit, Democratic candidates in the presidential primaries de-emphasize (hence can be accused of being weak on) national security issues because national security issues are a distraction from the things that Democratic voters care deeply about: health care, wages, the environment, poverty, education, etc. Republican candidates in presidential primaries emphasize national security issues (hence are seen as strong on national defense) for precisely the same reason: national security issues are a distraction from things Democratic voters (and most voters in the general election for that matter) care about. If you can get people to worry about terrorists or Commies, they'll stop clammering for national health care and higher gas taxes, so your buddies in the pharmaceutical and petroleum industries won't have to worry about the government hijacking their gravy train, and your buddies in the upper echelons of the income distribution get to keep more of their money.

This probably explains why Republicans are more hawkish when they get into office as well. If you don't have much to say about issues that people really care about, it's easy to get exercised about foreign policy. By contrast, when your typical Democratic president gets our country sucked into a military action of some kind, he and his advisors are deeply pained because their domestic policy initiatives become more difficult to pursue. They quickly look for a way out so they can get back to business.

But here's the thing. It turns out that national security issues are indeed important, and years into their terms in office Democratic presidents start to get more hawkish. Take Carter, who for the first three years in office bragged that his was the first administration since - geez, must've been Hoover or earlier - that did not have U.S. soldiers die in combat. By 1980 he was sending special forces to die in Iran to rescue the hostages and arming Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets. Or take Clinton, who hemmed and hawed about Haiti and tried to get troops out of Somalia as quick as possible early in his term; but by the end he had sent 20,000 troops to Bosnia, had bombed the bejeezus out of Kosovo, and was involved in a covert war against Al Qaeda.

So Hillary's hawkish views relative to Obama and Edwards reflect in part the natural evolutionary process of a Democratic presidential contender. Obama and Edwards are comparatively dovish because hawkishness is a distraction from what they care about, and they have never had to deal with national security issues in their political life. Elect one of them president, and three or four years later you'll see a president pursuing a much more aggressive foreign policy stance than he promised you in the primaries (and a more aggressive stance than he is really comfortable with in his heart of hearts). Hillary has had her time in office (or in close proximity thereto), and so is simply further along the trajectory than her opponents. I'd say the same about Al Gore.

In the end, it's a good thing that we occasionally elect a president who is reluctant to get our country mixed up in wars. If Bush had a domestic agenda he was trying to pursue (one that was popular with the public, that is), he might be trying much harder than he is now to find a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq. As it is, take away his war and what does he have left to stand on? What would he do with his time?