|
The Democrats in Congress supported the last several wars, even though there was plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the last two were put-up jobs. The Democrats in Congress supported the defense budget build-ups that the Bushies have designed (virtually no one in Congress will challenge a military spending bill except on the niggling details--demands for sweeping changes and massive cuts just aren't done).
And, I should add, that the Republicans aren't finished with Social Security--not by a long shot--but, for sake of argument, what tactics have they used? They lied repeatedly to the public about the facts related to the real problem; they tried to create a crisis atmosphere surrounding the issue; they proposed solutions which would have made the budget problems much worse and said they were necessary transition costs.
Now, presuming that Democrats might want to take up the issues of war and war spending (which they don't), what would happen if they used the Republicans' tactics against them? They'd be crucified in the press and in the court of public opinion. The party would be branded forever as "soft" on defense. (BTW, that term was first used on, guess who, Harry Truman in 1948 during the Republicans' attempt to retake Congress. It's an old, old battle.)
This is part of the reason why I fairly firmly believe that the only way there's going to be any change is if the average joe is directly affected by such policies. The third rail of defense right now is the draft. No one wants to touch it, because the average joe suddenly becomes directly affected by defense policy.
I don't want to deter anyone in this matter, but I am trying to be pragmatic, especially about a subject on which I've done a lot of research.
Cheers.
|