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

[beyond the sea]

"Protectionism has usually not been a winner in American politics ........"

****

Really?

[MNJohnnie]

Except the Seal ourselves off is going to be wildly popular with the same crowd whos is going to to rabidly ballistic with the "spend more" part of this program. So once again the Dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I am going to assume Mr Lowery has his tongue drilling a hole thru his cheek on this one. Unfortunately there is a segment of Freeprs who will think this marvelous advice. There are Know Nothings alive and well in modern Politics.

[MNJohnnie]

Name Hoover mean anything to you? Last Serious American Protectionist law was passed on his watch.

[saganite]

In case there's any doubt about what the author is saying about the Democrats strategy options here I've extracted the key words.

isolationism and nativism.
Protectionism
anti-foreign sentiment
taxes, regulations and subsidies
demagogue
isolationist sentiment
irresponsible
opportunism knocking

[beyond the sea]

I'm Swiss .............

;-)

[MNJohnnie]

Ah, well Hoover was the US President when the 1929 Stock Market crash happened. His response was to pass a serious protectionist trade bill and cut Govt spending to the bone. It was a seriously wrong answer economically. He was a Republican. Republicans then spent the next 72 years pretty much the constant minority party in the US House of Representatives.

[nopardons]

Since when was Pittsburgh, Pa. in SWITZERLAND?

[nopardons]

He lied...he's not Swiss.

[Caipirabob]

The Dims are already Socialist. Now they're going "National"?

[Caipirabob]

Thanks for the posts this morning.

[ClearCase_guy]

I can see the Democrats as Isolationists -- they never know how to handle foreign policy.
But I believe "nativist" implies a distrust of, and opposition to, immigration.

Democrats will be "nativist" when they start pushing for secure borders with Mexico.

I see them as National Socialists with a weak foreign policy.

[normy]

This is a winning strategy if people can believe them. I am not saying its good or bad, just winning. If they could find the balls to stop illegal immigration then they will win back the White House and Congress, IF they are believed by the public.

Abortion and gay rights can't be the cornerstone of your party. Protectionism will appeal.

[proxy_user]

Isolationism would be perfectly feasible for the US. We have a large country with lots of natural resources, and a skilled population. We could make everything we need ourselves. The only thing that might give us pause is oil and energy.

This would, of course, cause somewhat higher prices and a lower standard of living. However, many of our problems are caused by being too rich for our own good, and we might benefit by cutting back a little.

However, this is probably not going to happen.

[beyond the sea]

Since when was Pittsburgh, Pa. in SWITZERLAND? ........ He lied.......

Again.............AGAIN you did not read accurately. At least you are consistent.

You continually amuse me at with arrogant name-calling and incorrect claims.

In post #9 you told another poster (MNJohnnie) that I am a liar, right? That is what you wrote.

In the earlier post I merely wrote that I was Swiss............... NOT that I LIVE in Switzerland. Do you not understand the difference? Ever hear of heritage?

Now, quit your angry ways, or ............... you could just learn how to read.

[beyond the sea]

Thanks for that.

When I wrote "Really?" in post 2, I was just asking for other FReepers' opinions on that sentence about protectionism in the article.

Thanks for the short history lesson.

[beyond the sea]

He lied...he's not Swiss.

Why am I reminded of the old Bolivian prospector Percy in "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid", “Morons. I‘ve got morons on my team.” LOL.

****

Consulate of Switzerland

P.O. Box 7379

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (that's right near Marci's Winchester Thurston, nopardons) ;-)

(412) 967-6038

Please call for flight info/trips to Zurich.

;-)

[Mike Darancette]

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..

Should be a winner to some on this forum. Kick the fureners out of our ports and have the terminals run by the guvment and the AFL-CIO.

[Stultis]

Isolationism would be perfectly feasible for the US.

Not as a democratic Republic of free citizens. The degree of isolation you describe could only be imposed by authoritarian, if not totalitarian, means.