Going Nativist? The next step for Dems.

NRO ^ | February 28, 2006 | Rich Lowry

[neverdem]

	E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Version

February 28, 2006,

8:16 a.m.

Going Nativist?

The next step for Dems.

In their opportunistic rage over the Dubai ports deal, Democrats might find more than a transitory political advantage. The ports controversy is a road map to something the Democrats desperately need: a politically salable, post-9/11 national-security policy.

Nattering on about how important it is to listen to the U.N. and France has been a loser. Nor has the party's incoherence on the Iraq war — in favor of it when it seems politically expedient, sort of against it when it doesn't — gotten it anywhere. But the successful posturing on the Dubai deal points the way toward a thematically consistent foreign policy that could be popular, even if it is tinged with isolationism and nativism.

Republicans opposed to the deal have had to say, "We support free trade, but ..." Most Democrats don't have to bother with the "but." Last year, only 15 Democrats in the House and 10 in the Senate voted for the Central America Free Trade Agreement, demonstrating the party's departure from Bill Clinton's support for free trade. Protectionism typically travels with a paranoia about foreigners and their intentions, so Democrats are the more natural anti-Dubai-deal party than the Republicans.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), are promoting legislation that would ban any company owned by a foreign government from managing a U.S. terminal, widening out the outrage over the Dubai deal to a more general anti-foreign sentiment. The Democrats' chief constituency for protectionism, the unions, has been fanning the port controversy. Protectionism has usually not been a winner in American politics, but it gains punch when it is coupled with a suspicion of the Arab world.

Democrats can capitalize on this dynamic on another matter: energy independence. President Bush acknowledged the political power of this issue by making a bow to it in his State of the Union address. But Democrats are more naturally positioned to support the taxes, regulations and subsidies necessary to try to wean us off foreign oil, and then demagogue anything short of their policies as a sop to "George Bush's friends, the Saudis." Saudi Arabia is America's most-hated ally outside of France, and while Democrats have at times seemed on the verge of exploiting this, they never have.

Then there is Iraq. When John Kerry said in 2004 we should be building firehouses at home instead of in Baghdad, he was playing to isolationist sentiment. With the state of Iraq still chaotic, it will be more tempting now for Democrats to ask: Why are we spending blood and treasure on the welfare of people in a faraway country of which we know little — except, perhaps, that they don't seem capable of getting along?

Put this all together and you get a national-security policy based on doing more to seal ourselves off from the world; spending more on homeland security, including the ports; emphasizing our independence from Gulf sheikdoms; and forswearing serious attempts to reform Arab countries. President Bush would be left with the politically delicate task of explaining why we need to go out of our way to court some Arab allies, even if they are imperfect, and why trying to liberalize the perpetually tumultuous Middle East — rather than turning our backs on it — is so important.

There are problems with Democrats adopting this approach. It would be irresponsible, and there are some Democrats left — Sen. Joe Biden comes to mind — for whom that still matters. It would reject the post-World War II Democratic tradition of internationalism, to which the party (thankfully) still has a reflexive commitment. Finally, Democrats would inevitably mix their message. They can't be the homeland-security party and oppose the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency eavesdropping program. They can't be the hardheaded, let's-take-care-of-our-own party and still be best friends with the global elite at Turtle Bay and Davos, Switzerland.

But the Dubai controversy has to be satisfying for Democrats, and with opportunism knocking, they will be tempted to answer.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

(c) 2006 King Features Syndicate

	http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200602280816.asp

[proxy_user]

Well, if they voted for it.

It would more involve keeping people out than keeping people in. The treatment of non-citizens has always been somewhat authoritarian.

But, as I said, they're not going to vote for it.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Good point. You forgot that Hoover raised taxes too to balance the budget. And there were other disastrous policies. Three strikes and you're out--for 70 years. There are still diehard Roosevelt democrats out there, even though Roosevelt did many things to prolong the pain. But Republicans got ALL the blame, and they probably deserved it.

[MNJohnnie]

I had fogotten that on Taxes. Thanks for the correction.

[pollyannaish]

Yes, really.

[MNJohnnie]

Proxy:

"However, many of our problems are caused by being too rich for our own good, and we might benefit by cutting back a little
Stultis
"Not as a democratic Republic of free citizens little"

-

Ah but you see Proxy figures he would be one of the little galtleiters so for him Fascist America sounds like a wonderful idea. Too bad for him and the other little closet Hitlers on both the Left and Right, we got votes and the will to use them.

[pollyannaish]

I believe they will begin to rant on this openly using the ports issue as the keystone very soon.

It will be in the name of "security." They don't mean it and it won't go anywhere, but will be a strategy to break up the GOP base.

There are already flirtations with it. I expect it to heat up and be hard to avoid hearing about it by summer. There is no doubt it will work very effectively on some as can be seen by the rumblings around here. The question is...how effective.

[ClearCase_guy]

They don't mean it and it won't go anywhere, but will be a strategy to break up the GOP base.

Like Rangel and his call for a Draft? You never hear Republicans say we need a return of the Draft. But Rangel talks about it pretty consistently.

It would almost be amusing for President Bush to indicate that a review of the Draft is on the table. Dems would fall all over themselves getting to the microphone denouncing such talk as racist, and a war against poor folk.

And Rangel's outrage would be greater than anyone's.

[pollyannaish]

He voted against it himself. A HUGE case of disingenuousness.

Democrats really, honestly believe the American people are idiots. Little do they know...

[beyond the sea]

With your extraordinary ability to explain, you should be an educator.

[pollyannaish]

LOL. I thought you were mostly kidding and read sarcasm into that...so I was being flip.

A good lesson in just because I can post, doesn't mean I should.

I'm sorry.

[beyond the sea]

No need to be sorry!

Just turn the radio off or quit talking so much to hubby in the car, and you'll most likely hear that you're in third gear rather than fifth.

:-)

Yes......... I've done it too (59/male).

:-)

[pollyannaish]

ROFL. Oh stop. Actually, it is those things in life that keep me supremely humble. You know...feeling your oats, waving at people on the street...walking into a post.

Ok...back to work for me.

[proxy_user]

Well, I say it is not going to happen, it's not realistic, the voters don't want it.

They may say to cut back on immigration a little. That would be similar to the post-1924 period.

[TruthConquers]

I was thinking along these lines just yesterday. The Demoncrats will try to use this issue to give the appearance of being for national security. It will be a dishonest stab at increasing their power and that of the unions. An outright grab to nationalize, through government control, anything and everything that looks like a "national security" issue to the moderate dummies out there who still vote (and are uninformed).

This will be loud and emotionalized. It will NOT be an honest debate over HOW to secure our freedoms. We will not hear talking heads debate "is information and spying better, or is shutting the doors and manning the walls better?"

[beyond the sea]

Actually, it is those things in life that keep me supremely humble.

You may be supremely humble as you say, but I have noticed that you are also supremely decent and good.

Thank you for your FReeper quality and humor.

bts

[nopardons]

If you're "SWISS", I'm the Queen of England.

You grew up in Pittsburgh, you went to school in Pittsburgh, you served in the AMERICAN MILITARY, you own and run a business ( which according to your personal page is a "perennial nursery" ) and live in Pittsburgh with your wife.

You aren't attached to the Swiss Consulate and just because there is one, in Pittsburgh, doesn't make that part of Pa. SWITZERLAND! :-)

It is also NOT proper to divulge the info and the REAL name of someone not even a member of FR, which you learned about in private discourse. Continue doing so and perhaps I'll use some of YOUR private info, on threads, for no reason, other than to get your goat.

[nopardons]

I suggest that you stop lying. It really is not helpful to you.

When asked if you had ever heard of HERBERT HOOVER, your answer was "I'M SWISS".

Inandofitself, that was a non squirter.

The other poster, taking you at your word, then went on to tell you about HERBERT HOOVER; assuming that you didn't know much about HERBERT HOOVER, BECAUSE YOU WERE SWISS; NOT OF SWISS HERITAGE!.

And since you did NOT correct his misconception, he and others here, would have continued to be deluded by you, had I not called you what you are; A LIAR!

There are sins of commission and sins of omissions. In your post, you managed to commit both kinds.

Stating that you had LIED/are a LIAR, was a statement of fact; not name calling.

[beyond the sea]

Go to a hospital.

Stay there for a good time.

[beyond the sea]

Go to the hospital.

[nopardons]

No, ISOLATIONISM is not "perfectly feasible for the US.", as you claimed.

Such an action would cause far more problems than just "somewhat higher prices and a lower standard of living" here. If it was instituted, it would cause a depression, the likes of which would make the one we suffered through, from 1929 through WW II, pale by comparison.

Should we cut off all imports, all of our exports would be stopped.

We no longer make a large variety of things. For us to get these various commodities, we would have to not only hope the American firms would spring up to make ( those, of course, that could be made, grown, and mined here; that is ) and sell them here. That would take a great deal of time and in the case of some minerals/ores, needed for our armaments, impossible, since none of them exist here.

Your second paragraph is right out of MARX. We're "TOO RICH FOR OUR OWN GOOD." ? You're no conservative.