The Democratic Moment?

Lawrence J. Haas

oday, the Democratic Party has a golden opportunity to reclaim the leadership role that it played on national security for most of the T20th Century. But, to do so, the party must discard a damaging mind-set that has clouded its thinking since Vietnam—defensive about American ideals and history, standoffish (if not hostile) toward the mil- itary, and reluctant to use force. It must then develop a new vision for national security that is appropriate for the dangers we face, and that reflects a determination to do whatever is needed to confront them.

For at least a generation, Americans have consistently put their trust in Republicans over Democrats on matters of national security. But President Bush’s fumbling of the war in Iraq has dramatically altered the political land- scape of national security. Suddenly, in polls asking Americans which party is likelier to keep them safe, Democrats have pulled even. The polls, however, reflect far less a newfound trust in Democratic thinking than a deep-seated public disillusionment with the management of the war and its aftermath. Simply put, more Americans say they trust Democrats on mat- ters of national security because, in this season of discontent, they would trust anyone more than the current administration. Iraq, in other words, has given the Democrats an opening—but only an opening, not a guarantee of future political success. As the 2008 presidential campaign approaches, Democrats must embrace and successfully navigate

Lawrence J. Haas is Vice President for Policy at the non-partisan Committee on the Present Danger. Previously, he served as Communications Director to Vice President Al Gore and, before that, as Communications Director to the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton. Lawrence J. Haas

the new politics of national security. a change of mind-set, about discard- Gone, for the foreseeable future, ing 30 years of post-Vietnam discom- are the days when Democrats could fort with the military, reluctance to win, as they did in 1992, largely by use and sustain force, and cynicism shifting the national conversation to about American ideals. It also is about domestic issues on which they held assuming and exuding an eagerness a considerable advantage. Gone are about national security, about welcom- the days when, also as in 1992, the ing the solemn opportunity to fulfill GOP incumbent’s greater comfort the President’s most sacred obliga- with foreign than domestic affairs tion—to keep America safe. (as President George H. W. Bush Democrats must seize the oppor- acknowledged about himself) could tunity and adopt a mind-set about hurt him. national security that reflects three basic themes:

Iraq has given the Democrats an 1. a firm belief in the superiority of opening—but only an opening, U.S.-style freedom and democ- not a guarantee of future political racy over all other alternatives, success. As the 2008 presidential 2. a clear-eyed understanding of the campaign approaches, Democrats dangers that our enemies pose to must embrace and successfully our safety and well being, and navigate the new politics of 3. an eagerness to grab the reins national security. of national security and serve as America’s commander in chief. Today, at a time of terrorist threats and at the early stage of a Trumpeting America generational war against militant “Let every nation know,” the new Islam, Americans view national President proclaimed on January 20, security in a new light. It is now an 1961, “whether it wishes us well or ill, unavoidable political hurdle that a that we shall pay any price, bear any presidential candidate must clear. burden, meet any hardship, support To win in 2008 and beyond, a candi- any friend, oppose any foe, in order to date must convince Americans that assure the survival and the success he or she will keep them safe. Only of liberty.” John F. Kennedy was stri- then will the public seriously weigh dent on that bitterly cold day because the candidate’s proposals to protect he knew that our cause was just, that Social Security, expand health care, our system of freedom and democ- and improve education. racy was far superior to the Soviet For Democrats, this is about model we were confronting around something more basic than a strategy the globe. to confront militant Islam (a complex Forty-three years later, U.S. endeavor that will require an appro- troops were engaged in Iraq when priate mix of military power, tradi- a prisoner abuse scandal erupted at tional diplomacy, grassroots outreach, Abu Ghraib. Ted Kennedy, the slain covert operations, and economic and President’s brother and one of Wash- humanitarian assistance). Clearing ington’s most influential Democrats, the national security hurdle is about walked to the Senate floor to offer

88 The Journal of International Security Affairs The Democratic Moment? his take. “Shamefully,” he suggested, Hussein. (Whatever one thinks of “we now learn that Saddam’s Bush’s decision to topple Saddam, or chambers reopened under new man- of America’s mismanagement of the agement—U.S. management.” Unlike aftermath, no serious person could his brother, this Kennedy could portray Saddam’s Iraq in that way.) find no moral distinction between a And, at the 2004 Democratic National regime that tortured its opponents as Convention, former President Jimmy a matter of state policy and a nation Carter invited Moore to sit with him that (notwithstanding the problems for all the world to see. at Abu Ghraib) had sought to liberate its people. Of late, in their rhetoric and In a sense, the rhetoric of the behavior, too many Democratic brothers Kennedy serves as book- ends to the transformation of Demo- leaders, strategists, and activists cratic thinking about America, its have portrayed America more place in the world, and the justness of ambiguously than clearly, with its cause. Of late, in their rhetoric and behavior, too many Democratic lead- more hesitation than pride, ers, strategists, and activists have por- and with more confusion than trayed America more ambiguously certainty. In doing so, they have than clearly, with more hesitation raised public doubts about their than pride, and with more confusion than certainty. In doing so, they have willingness to defend the United raised public doubts about their will- States with all vigor necessary. ingness to defend the with all vigor necessary. A year later, Democratic activists In his moral confusion, Ted Ken- linked up with Cindy Sheehan, whose nedy was not alone. As Democratic son died in Iraq and who, in her trav- anger over the particulars of the els across the nation, said America Bush administration’s “is not worth dying for,” called Bush and invasion of Iraq grew, some Dem- “the biggest terrorist in the world,” ocrats lost sight of the bigger picture. and called the In mid-2005, the Senate Democratic a secret plot to help Israel. Moveon. Whip, Richard Durbin, compared the org, the on-line grassroots group on way American soldiers were treat- which Democrats have become so ing captives in the War on Terror to dependent, helped to coordinate her the treatment meted out by “Nazis, travels, while the Center for Ameri- Soviets in their gulags, or some mad can , a progressive think regime—Pol Pot or others.” tank where many ex-Clinton admin- Moreover, Democrats have istration officials work, publicized cavorted a bit too closely with those her exploits.1 willing to blame America for the hos- If Democrats seriously want to tility of its enemies. In 2004, the par- recapture the White House, this will ty’s congressional leaders attended not do. Americans know better. They the Washington opening of Michael live in the United States by choice, Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a docu- not by necessity. They see America fantasy that painted Iraq as a happy with clear eyes—as the free-est, playground that the United States most democratic, most open society ruined by overthrowing Saddam in the world, and the one offering the

The Journal of International Security Affairs 89 Lawrence J. Haas widest set of opportunities. They take interventionist left” this way: “[O]ne note of the millions across the globe assumes that because America is who seek refuge in America and, as strong it must be wrong.”4 reflected in their anger after Septem- The next successful Democratic ber 11th, they will come to America’s presidential candidate will be one defense when necessary. who neither suffers nor enunciates A Democratic presidential candi- moral confusion about America. He date who seeks a new way to approach or she will hold, and articulate, a firm national security might consider the belief in the superiority of U.S.-style recent work of progressives in Europe. freedom and democracy over the In early 2006, twenty-five writers and authoritarian systems of our enemies. academics penned “The Euston Mani- Like Harry Truman at the outset of festo,” a robust alternative to prevail- the or Kennedy at its most ing liberal orthodoxy in Europe. “The precarious moments, the next Demo- United States of America is a great cratic president will lay America and country and nation,” the manifesto its enemies side by side, explain the states. “It is the home of a strong superiority of American ideals, and democracy with a noble tradition outline a vision to guarantee Ameri- behind it and lasting constitutional ca’s long-term security. and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant Seeing the enemy culture that is the pleasure, the source- 2 straight book and the envy of millions.” In one sense, the global wars of Inspired by the effort, a smaller the 20th century were easier for the group of liberals in the United States United States to fight. Our people built upon these sentiments with a suffered far less confusion about the statement of their own in late 2006: identity of our enemies (in World “American and the Euston War I, Germany; in World War II, the Manifesto.” Arguing that “[t]he long Axis Powers; and in the Cold War, the era of Republican ascendancy may Soviet Union) or what they sought very well be coming to an end,” they (world domination). Today, we are added that “[i]f and when it does, we confused about whom we are fight- seek a renewed and reinvigorated ing, the source of their strength, the American liberalism, one that is up to nature of their anger, and how to mea- the task of fighting and winning the sure our progress. struggle of free and democratic soci- Consider the progression of eties against Islamic extremism and America’s deeply polarized debate the terror it produces.” on foreign policy since 2001. From Of liberals in general, they the days of broad support for the U.S. wrote, “the passions of too many attack on Afghanistan to root out al- liberals here and abroad, even in Qaeda, we moved to a bitterly parti- the aftermath of terrorist attacks all san debate over whether to launch over the world, remain more focused the 2003 invasion in Iraq, then to an on the misdeeds and errors of our even more bitter debate over whether own government in Iraq than on the to stay or retreat as we botched the terrorist outrages by Islamic extrem- 3 post-Saddam stabilization effort. We ists.” Separately, centrist Democrats have argued vociferously about Sad- Will Marshall and Jeremy Rosner dam’s links to terror, the sources of portrayed the thinking of the “non-

90 The Journal of International Security Affairs The Democratic Moment? violence in Iraq, the military focus To be sure, too many Ameri- on Iraq as opposed to Iran and Syria, cans of all political persuasions do Iran and Syria’s roles in stoking the not recognize the threat of militant fires of Iraq, and their potential to Islam. Nor do they fully grasp the help us put them out. dangerous links between terrorists, Because confusion runs ram- their state sponsors, and the pursuit pant, let us be clear. The United of nuclear weapons. But the problem States and its allies face a global chal- is particularly acute in Democratic lenge from militant Islam (a.k.a. radi- circles, where hatred of President cal Islam or Islamic extremism) that Bush, reluctance to make value judg- openly asserts its plans to replace ments about different cultures, and secular law with a strict interpreta- confidence in the rationality of man tion of Islam, turn back the clock on blinds Democrats to the reality of modernity, reject pluralism, subju- this danger. gate women, eradicate homosexu- als, eliminate Israel, and impose this The next successful Democratic ideology of intolerance by all means necessary across the globe. candidate will be one who The challenge of militant Islam moves beyond Bush hatred plays out on several levels. It provides and the niceties of political the philosophical glue that binds ter- rorist groups across the world in a correctness to, in the words network of planning, cooperation, of the left, “speak truth to murder, and mayhem. It is the ideo- power.” The candidate will logical engine that drove planes into articulate a clear-eyed view of the World Trade Center and Penta- gon and destroyed buses in London, the world, defining the nature trains in Madrid, hotels in Bali, and of our enemies, their underlying cafés in Haifa. It also drives such ideology, and their long-term important state sponsors of as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which goals in words that ring true to provides funds, training, weapons, average Americans. and other aid to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups. In Washington and across the Endangering the United States country, Democratic leaders, strate- and its allies further are Iran’s gists, and activists are seized by an aggressive efforts to develop nuclear almost obsessive anger at the Presi- weapons, with which it could carry dent, leading too many of them to out threats of its president, Mah- discount, if not dismiss, everything moud Ahmadinejad, to “wipe” Israel with which he is associated. Rather “off the map” or create “a world than merely critique Bush’s war on without America.” Now, the free terror (as they would his economic world faces the frightening specter policies), too many Democrats dis- of a radical regime in Tehran using count the very idea of such a war. nuclear weapons itself or transfer- Rather than see an enemy commit- ring them to a terrorist group, dedi- ted to our destruction, driven by cated to death in service of Allah, a unifying ideology of hatred, too that in turn would show no hesitation many Democrats view the war as a to use them. political tactic of Karl Rove and the

The Journal of International Security Affairs 91 Lawrence J. Haas

very idea of an enemy as a tool for of anti-Western terrorism, too many whipping up fear. Democrats explain terrorism as the In their confusion (or willful logical response to legitimate griev- blindness), leading Democrats are ances—e.g., American imperialism aided mightily by the Bush-hating around the world, economic inequal- leftist bloggers to whom they pledge ity in terrorist-producing nations, or their allegiance by speaking at Israeli settlements in the West Bank. their national convention, meeting Such ill-informed explanations of with them informally, and monitor- terrorism lead, almost inexorably, to ing their writings. Even those who ill-suited solutions from a bygone era. know better say privately that, politi- Seeking a new national security strat- cally speaking, they can’t challenge egy for today, some Democrats point the anti-Bush orthodoxy that blinds proudly to the “containment” strat- Democrats to the very real threats egy that their party leaders devised that America faces. after World War II and suggest that And when a Democrat tries to we merely need to reinvigorate the rise above partisanship in the inter- strategy and strengthen the machin- est of national security, to ensure (as ery with which the United Nations, Senator Arthur Vandenberg coun- NATO, and the Western alliance seled in the late 1940s) that politics implemented it. should stop “at the water’s edge,” But containment was rooted in the left reacts with fury. Enraged by the “rational actor” theory of interna- Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman’s tional relations, a belief that leaders support for the war in Iraq and his cau- act rationally when making decisions tion against weakening the President about the use of force. Related to too much during wartime, the left ral- the “rational actor” theory was the lied behind Ned Lamont, who upset theory of “mutual assured destruc- Lieberman in Connecticut’s Demo- tion,” or MAD, the idea that neither cratic primary. (Lieberman later won the United States nor the Soviet the general election by running as an Union would launch a nuclear attack independent.) against the other because each had the nuclear capacity to fully destroy September 11th awoke us to the the other with a counter-strike. As R. dangers that had been mounting James Woolsey, Clinton’s former CIA Director who now co-chairs the non- for decades. Now, with a new partisan Committee on the Present reality must come a new political Danger, put it recently, MAD could line, one that resonates with work because Soviet leaders cared people in their living rooms and more about living the good life in their dachas than risking it all in a at their dinner tables, addressing nuclear war.5 their hopes and fears. Unfortunately, this concept may not apply to our new enemies; those Nor, in this age of rampant (like Ahmadinejad) who are driven political correctness, are Democrats by radical theology and who threaten particularly anxious to explore the to obliterate sovereign nations just cultural or religious ideologies of may mean it (as Hitler meant it when our enemies. Rather than acknowl- he presaged his war against the edge the theological underpinnings Jews in Mein Kampf and elsewhere).

92 The Journal of International Security Affairs The Democratic Moment?

These enemies may be willing, even emerge. “Today,” he told religious eager, to risk nuclear war, for they leaders in late 2005, “we should seek not just victory in a war with define our economic, cultural and the West but death as a glorious end political policies based on the policy in itself. “Is there art that is more of Imam Mahdi’s return.”7 beautiful, more divine, and more The next successful Democratic eternal than the art of martyrdom?” candidate will be one who moves Ahmadinejad has mused. “A nation beyond Bush hatred and the nice- with martyrdom knows no captivity. ties of political correctness to, in Those who wish to undermine this the words of the left, “speak truth to principle undermine the foundations power.” The candidate will articulate of our independence and national a clear-eyed view of the world, defin- security. They undermine the foun- ing the nature of our enemies, their dation of our eternity.”6 underlying ideology, and their long- Confronted with such rhetoric, term goals in words that ring true to too many of us are quick to dismiss average Americans. it as tactical, designed for a rational purpose. Ahmadinejad, we speculate, Prioritizing national is seeking to strengthen his political power hand at home by “playing to his base” After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, or to build his profile in the region by President Kennedy invited former thumbing his nose at the United States Vice President Richard Nixon—the and Israel. And, inferring rationality, titular leader of the Republican too many Democratic leaders sug- Party—to the White House for a gest a strategy that reflects it, such as briefing. Chatting in the Oval Office, negotiations to convince Iran to end Kennedy turned to his former adver- its pursuit of nuclear weapons or an sary and mused about the impor- updated version of “containment” to tance of such matters. “It really is deal with a nuclear Iran. true that foreign affairs is the only But we infer rationality at our important issue for a President to peril. Ahmadinejad subscribes to handle, isn’t it?” Kennedy asked. “I a radical strain of Islam that antici- mean, who [cares] if the minimum pates the return of the “12th Imam” wage is $1.15 or $1.25, in comparison or “Mahdi,” a messianic figure from to something like this?”8 the 9th century whose arrival suppos- Kennedy’s insight reflected a edly will signal the end of the world. mind-set about national security that Ahmadinejad reportedly seeks a vio- was shared by Democratic presidents lent confrontation with the West to as far back as Truman, if not FDR and help speed the Mahdi’s return. His Wilson. They viewed national secu- pursuit of nuclear weapons is consis- rity as central to their presidencies, tent with such theology. recognizing that security abroad was Do not scoff. Ahmadinejad is a prerequisite for progress in domes- confident enough about the Mahdi’s tic affairs, and that only a robust for- return that, as Tehran’s mayor in eign policy would ensure safety. 2004, he ordered an urban recon- For at least the last three decades, struction project in anticipation of it. however, Democrats mostly have As Iran’s President, he has allocated held a far different view. What began nearly $20 million to a mosque from as perhaps an understandable reac- which the Mahdi supposedly will

The Journal of International Security Affairs 93 Lawrence J. Haas tion to the debacle in Vietnam grew the subject and that eagerly tackles into a far broader, and more insidious, issues that touch upon America’s role discomfort with all things military. in the world, its responsibilities as Rather than embrace foreign policy, (in the words of former Secretary of Democrats sought to avoid it. They State Madeleine Albright) the world’s viewed it as a necessary but unpleas- “indispensable nation,” and the ant part of any presidency, almost as a threats and challenges that it faces. policy-making cross to bear. This is no small thing. It requires The historical evolution is strik- not just a change in rhetoric, but in gut ing. In 1960, Kennedy ran to the right feeling. Politicians joke that their key of Nixon, charging (inaccurately) to success is “sincerity—if you can that the Eisenhower administra- fake that, you’ve got it made.” Amus- tion had allowed a “missile gap” to ing, but recent history has shown develop with the Soviets. In his inau- that, in political terms, you can’t “fake gural address, he spoke barely a word it” on national security. of domestic policy, instead making You can’t, for instance, run suc- clear why the nation must “pay any cessfully for President on the basis of price [and] bear any burden” in its biography rather that vision. Desper- fight against the Soviets. Sixteen ate to offset President Bush’s wartime years later, in the shadow of Vietnam, leadership, Democratic insiders in America elected Democratic Jimmy 2004 rallied in great numbers behind Carter, who scolded Americans for former NATO Commander Wesley their “irrational fear of .” Clark. Once he flamed out, activists Sixteen years after that, they elected moved in enough numbers to help Democrat Bill Clinton, who had prom- secure the nomination for Vietnam ised to focus “like a laser beam” on veteran . the economy. In 2004 and after, Democrats Clinton’s domestic focus was complained bitterly that the “Swift understandable, reflecting the times Boat Veterans for Truth” deliber- in which America was living. The ately distorted Kerry’s Vietnam Soviet Union had collapsed, a noted experience and legislative record. scholar suggested the world had Fine. But, as I wrote shortly after reached the “end of history,” the his defeat, “they didn’t put words in “Washington Consensus” envisioned Kerry’s mouth. They didn’t vow to that spreading free market capitalism convert terrorism into a public ‘nui- would spread peace with it, and the sance’ that’s akin to prostitution, talk United States wondered who would of a ‘global test’ for the U.S. to pass emerge as its next major threat. before it takes military action, vow to Then, September 11th awoke do what it takes to win in Iraq while us to the dangers that had been setting timetables for withdrawal, mounting for decades. Now, with a promise to respect the views of allies new reality must come a new politi- while terming those who sent troops cal line, one that resonates with to Iraq as the ‘coerced and bribed,’ people in their living rooms and at or talk about the war as a colossal their dinner tables, addressing their mistake while vowing to bring more hopes and fears. nations to the effort.”9 For Democrats, that means a Having nominated a decorated wholly new mind-set, one that elevates veteran and orchestrated a politi- national security rather than changes cal convention in which he was sur-

94 The Journal of International Security Affairs The Democratic Moment? rounded by other veterans, party cally-strapped America will lack the leaders figured they had cleverly resources to play its current role as “checked the box” on national secu- a kind of “world government,” with a rity. When that didn’t work, they frightening potential for global chaos blamed the war rather than them- as the result.10 selves, as Pennsylvania’s Democratic The successful Democrat will governor, Ed Rendell, did right after recognize not just the economic but the election when he suggested that, also the national security dangers if not for September 11th, Kerry presented by our soaring budget defi- would have won. cit. As our debt grows, its purchasers If you can’t “fake it,” neither can enjoy the leverage over us that any you avoid the issue of national secu- creditor holds over its debtors. They rity, as party leaders also have sought can wreak havoc with our economy to do. For too long, Democrats have merely by threatening to dump their tried to turn the focus of national dollar holdings, sending interest political debate to what Democratic rates higher and possibly even gen- activists call “the issues we want to erating a “run” on the currency. The talk about”—the economy, health growing debt held by foreign central care, and education. In a sense, they banks, such as that of China, present have tried almost to avoid reality; a particular problem for America, for to insist, as their national chairman their economic leverage could force did in early 2004, that even with the the United States to back away from nation at war the “bread-and-butter” a national security challenge, such as issues of domestic policy would deter- a confrontation with China over the mine the election. fate of Taiwan. Moving forward, Democrats must discard their “either/or” approach to Moving forward, Democrats politics—either the public focuses on domestic issues, where Democrats must discard their “either/ are strong, or on national security, or” approach to politics. The where Democrats are less comfort- next successful Democratic able. The next successful Democratic presidential candidate will be presidential candidate will be one who views both foreign and domes- one who views both foreign and tic issues as integral to his or her domestic issues as integral to presidency because, more and more, his or her presidency because, foreign and domestic issues are two more and more, foreign and sides of the same coin. As a successful Democratic domestic issues are two sides of candidate will make clear, America the same coin. must gain control over the explod- ing costs of domestic entitlements The merging of domestic and for- (basically Social Security, Medicare, eign policy, however, is less a burden and Medicaid) not only because than an opportunity for a Democratic they will crowd out other domestic candidate—a way to differentiate spending but because they threaten oneself from the incumbent Republi- funds for defense and diplomacy. As can president. The fact is, this meld- the scholar Michael Mandelbaum ing of national and economic security writes in The Case for Goliath, a fis- apparently has escaped Bush’s notice.

The Journal of International Security Affairs 95 Lawrence J. Haas

Indeed, when historians write about grab the reins of power in order to the Bush presidency, they will criti- protect their safety and security. cize nothing more harshly than his failure to bring these issues, and the country, together after September 11th. With Manhattan and the Pen- tagon still smoldering, Bush could 1. Lawrence J. Haas, “Caution to Democrats: Sheehan May Be Hazardous to Your Political have sought a national effort to wean Health,” Public Affairs Perspective, September America from foreign oil (and stop 9, 2005, www.larryhaasonline.com. underwriting hostile regimes in the 2. “The Euston Manifesto,” www.eustonmani- Middle East) and ensure our long- festo.org. 3. “New American Liberalism,” www.newamer- term fiscal health (and stop sacrific- icanliberalism.org. ing our to an emerging 4. Will Marshall and Jeremy Rosner, “Intro- and increasingly bold China). In such duction: A Progressive Answer to Jihadist an effort, he could have attracted not Terror,” in Will Marshall, ed., With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating just Republicans and Democrats but Jihadism and Defending Liberty (Lanham: subsets of both—environmentalists Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). on the left, fiscal conservatives on 5. R. James Woolsey, Remarks at the Ameri- the right, and everyone in the middle can Foreign Policy Council conference on “Understanding the Iranian Threat,” Wash- who wanted to contribute to a true ington, D.C., November 15, 2006. national war effort, to play a role on 6. Newt Gingrich, “Lessons from the First Five the home front while our young men Years of War: Where Do We Go from Here,” and women went to war. The next Speech before the American Enterprise Institute, September 12, 2006, http://www. successful Democratic candidate for aei.org/publications/pubID.24891,filter.all/ President will need to see both sides pub_detail.asp. of the security coin. 7. Ilan Berman, “Understanding Ahmadine- jad,” American Foreign Policy Council Iran Strategy Brief no. 1, (June 2006), http:// Seizing the initiative www.afpc.org/IFI/UnderstandingAhma- Iraq continues to deteriorate, dinejad.pdf. with the triumph of 2003 becom- 8. Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, ing the tragedy of 2007 and beyond. 1993), 100. Americans are increasingly angry 9. Lawrence J. Haas, “Election ’04 and the at this turn of events, and are laying Democrats: Let the Bloodletting Begin,” the blame squarely at President Public Affairs Perspective, November 5, 2004, www.larryhaasonline.com. Bush’s doorstep. For Democrats, 10. Michael Mandelbaum, The Case for Goliath: who desperately want to regain the How America Acts as the World’s Government White House, the political opportu- in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Pub- nity is obvious. licAffairs, 2005). But the path to victory lies in seiz- ing the issue of national security, not avoiding it. It also rests in articulating a coherent and convincing vision, not simply putting forth a biography. The next successful Democratic president will proudly trumpet the superiority of U.S.-style freedom and democracy, clearly define the challenge of mili- tant Islam, and convince the Ameri- can people that he or she is eager to

96 The Journal of International Security Affairs