The Problem with Liberal Hawks

Matt Yglesias writes on the media problems facing liberal hawks, of which I consider myself one. He notes that

Politics and policy aside, I think those of us who'd classify ourselves as being among the more "hawkish" brand of liberals have a media strategy problem. Roughly speaking, a lot of Democratic voters don't like us very much.

Well, there's that. Nice of him not to couch the problem in flowery language.

What we need to do is convince more liberals that they should like us. That means spending more time trying to convince liberals of the merits of our views, and less time re-enforcing the impression that we're just opportunists searching for votes out there in some ill-defined center. Give the people a convincing argument for a plausible hawkish policy (Kosovo, for example) and plenty of liberals will come along for the party.

I think he fails to note that the perception of competence in the Commander in Chief is extremely important. I'm a liberal hawk who opposed the Iraq invasion because, deep down, I didn't trust Bush's leadership. I still don't, and I'm still skeptical that Iraq will be a model of socially open democracy in three years. Hopeful? Yes, but I live in the real world, and I carry the burden of real-world concerns with me every day.

I think there are fantastic reasons to be hawkish, but only when we tell the truth up front and only when we really intend to win.

Atrios takes some nearly incoherent swipes at liberal hawks, going ballistic for some of them supporting the Iraq war, says that pandering to the center is great, and concludes by saying, "So, liberal hawks, it's your mess - figure out how to clean it up..."

I'd love the chance. How about we put the bickering aside and focus on winning back the congress in '06 and the White House in '08? Seems like that would be more productive than a pissing match between the war and anti-war wings of the left, don't you think?

Posted by shamanic at May 26, 2005 06:58 PM | TrackBack