Schumer entered Congress in 1980, I believe, and his formative experience as a politician was the Democratic Party's Reaganite move to the right. You guys think I'm bashing him, I'm not. I've talked to Schumer twice. The first time was more illustrative of where he comes from; he mentioned how frustrated he was with the Democratic Party... of 1980 and how unconcerned it was with fitting into a majority conservative country. This made sense, because 1980 saw a realignment towards a Reaganite majority coalition. Today, he thinks that Bush commands this Reaganite coalition, rather than the neo-Confederate tenuous coalition he's been able to patch together.
It's natural for politicians to do what has worked for them. That's Schumer's instinct.
On any other Western country's political spectrum he would be a centrist at best, as would most Democrats.
In many Western countries, he'd be certainly on the center-right.
The Democratic leadership pens rhetoric well to the right of the Conservative government of Dominique de Villepin on subjects ranging from public pensions to publicly-funded health insurance to foreign policy and so on.
Objectively speaking, Matt is correct. The man is arguably center-right.
And to the guy who called him a Leninist, man, you sure you're in the right party? Where did all these cold-warrior types calling themselves Democrats come from?
Man, red baiting, that would be so......'70's!
And so....GOP.
You certainly seem like you know your political theory and history, so I'll assume your "cold-warrior" comment was flip. But there certainly used to be a place in the Democratic party for individuals who aren't Doves. FDR and Harry Truman, two of the Country's greatest Presidents in my estimation, certainly would be considered hawks today.
It was admittedly flip.
Left unsaid (explicitly) was the "red-baiting" part. And in fact, red-baiting cold-warriors tended to be found on the other side of the political spectrum, among Dixiecrats (like our current red-baiter who, unlike most of his soul-mates, still thinks of himself as a Democrat) and Republicans.
Red-baiting was plain stupid back in the 50's, accomplishing nothing but denying civil rights, a public voice and a right to a livelihood to quite a few people on what we now know to be a very flimsy basis. And if it was stupid in the '50's, it is beyond stupid 50 years later, especially coming from a supposed Democrat on a progressive site where more than a few of us are cut from varying shades of that cloth and are unashamed about it.
All this being said, you are correct, there certainly is a place for hard national security thinking for all who think they are worthy of governing, and this is just as true for lefties as it is for moderates, for conservatives and I suppose even for right-wingnuts. Nations have undeniable interests, at root the representation of a certain way of life and a system of values, and this is every bit as true of socially democratic nations like Europe as it is with more socially regressive countries like the US is slowly evolving into.
These interests need to be defended of course. Assuming lefties do not think so is essentialyl a strawman discussion. Where we tend to disagree is what the values are that need to be defended, and what are the best tactics to defend them.
FDR and Truman were undeniably able defenders of the American, relatively democratic and progressive way of life (given the times) from some pretty nasty, alien threats. War declarations on the part of enemies tend to focus the mind, and FDR was definitely up to the challenge.
However, getting the US into the war in Vietnam was not and is not hard national security thinking. It was adventurism pure and simple. And it was Vietnam itself, and not the protestors' reaction to it, which destroyed the bona fides of the Dems' stature on national security.
Whatever Johnson thought he was doing is well and good, and I'm sure there were many good intentions paving that road. The end result was a colonial war which ended as they usually do - defeat. And I know it is now in vogue to extol the virtues of Scoop Jackson Democrats, especially among middle-aged and baby-boomer "Risk by Parker Brothers" addicts, refered to by many of the rest of us as "neo-cons," but the fact is it was Scoop Jackson-style FP thinking which did the Dems in on foreign policy, and it is similar FP thinking animating the GOP today.
For Iraq is also pure adventurism. In time, it will prove to be the undoing of the current GOP FP establishment, just as Vietnam was the undoing of so-called "muscular" Democrats. What Democrats should now be doing, rather than playing the "me too but better than them" game (this latest document being a step in the right direction), is laying the groundwork for the kind of statesmanship that will need to take place to build the foundations for a more realistic, stable, solid and moral (yes moral) strategic foreign and national security policy.
Want to see an example of an effective foreign and national security policy that fits both left and right? Alternately pursued by both Socialists and Gaullists, France's foreign and security policy revolves around an able diplomatic corps, a modestly scaled but very potent conventional military component (unlike the rest of the Continent, France's army can fight when it needs to), nuclear deterrance, and last but in present times not least, capable intelligence gathering both abroad and at home. France does not get bogged down in military adventures halfway 'round the globe, and deals with its economic threats diplomtaically, not militarily. This is how you do it in the real world, well, at least the real world where governments don't piss away the national treasury on war games played by guys who fantasize about replaying the Crimean War on week-end.
And there is nothing written in stone which says just because you are a lefty you cannot be guided by realpolitik in matters of security and foreign policy.
Compare and contrast with the GOP's foreign and security policies. I think all of us can agree, even the red-baiting "Dems," that on this score, the GOP are amateurs. Unfortunately, many of the Dems, especially those who think Scoop Jackson is to be emulated, are perfectly willing to play the same game. In fact, they insist on saying, like the GOP, that this is the only game in town.
Certainly they can credibly say "we can play this game better than the amateurs in there now," and it is hard to argue with this. But the question becomes "is this game in our best interests?"
I would submit that it wasn't in '63, it wasn't in '03, and it still isn't.
Obviously I like Schumer more than most folks around here, which is fine. But I still do think calling him a Reagan Democrat is just objectively incorrect. The term Reagan Democrat usually refers to someone who, though still registered as a Democrat, actually votes Republican. Moreover, the term generally is used to refer to white, socially conservative, blue collar Democrats who were pulled into the Republican column based on Republicans use of wedge issues.
Given all of that, I don't quite get how Schumer qualifies as a Reagan Dem. He may be moderate on some issues, but not the social ones, and he doesn't seem like the definition of blue collar to me.
I suppose he was one of the folks that recognized the Democratic party's need to move away from their pre-1980 image and strategies, but in my book that just makes him smart. Smart enough, incidentally, to know quite well where the holes are in GWB's coalition and go after them. He and Rahm are two of the best political strategists the party has had in years. I think November will prove that that's the case.
