E.J. Dionne Weighs In On The Democrats' National Security "Dilemma"

E.J. Dionne has joined the chorus of progressive columnists who are demanding that the Democrats start doing their patriotic duty when it comes to the debate on national security:

By not engaging the national security debate, Democrats cede to Rove the power to frame it. Consider that clever line about Democrats having a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world. The typical Democratic response would be defensive: "No, no, of course 9/11 changed the world." More specifically, there's a lot of private talk among Democrats that the party should let go of the issue of warrantless spying on Americans because the polls show that a majority values security and safety.

What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line about Sept. 11. Does having a "post-9/11 worldview" mean allowing Bush to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans -- including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans -- reject such an anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren't willing to take on this issue, what's the point of being an opposition party?

The bottom line here is that, in the run-up to the 2002 mid-term elections, the Democrats basically rolled over on the national security issue, and we all know how effective that strategy was. Hell, even John Kerry -- who actually voted against the first Gulf War -- voted in October 2002 to let Bush invade Iraq. That was nothing but political cowardice, plain and simple.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if a strategy did not work for you in the past, why engage in the same strategy again? This is pretty basic stuff, folks, yet the Democrats appear to be on the verge of repeating that same mistake.