Liberals are ass-backwards. Granted, that's neither articulate nor especially informative, but when it comes to liberalism's attitude toward military power, it's entirely accurate.
Before we get too far into this, a little housekeeping. This column is about liberals, not Democrats.
The Democratic Party is composed of a bunch of politicians, and all of them need to get re-elected by vastly different constituencies. Their commitment to the ideology of the left is largely governed by how much of it their constituents are able to stomach. So not all Democrats will fall under this umbrella.
In the March 3 issue of The New Republic, Charles Krauthammer states his reasoning for why the liberal attitude toward military force is as clear as mud, yet totally coherent.
According to Krauthammer, liberals are not afraid of military force - they just don't want to appear selfish in its application. As such, they are wary of using military power in ways that appear to be blatantly for United States' self-interest.
For this reason, liberals were very squeamish about the Gulf War. Even though Kuwait had been invaded, the overriding problem was a direct threat to American interests in the region, both in terms of oil and arms proliferation.
Ironically, it was liberals who brought the might of the United States to bear on Serbia, Somalia, and Haiti. In all of these places, a direct threat to the United States or its interests was miniscule at best.
Now we have a problem. An ideology that is clearly unafraid to dispatch the most powerful military in the world to do a job that it believes in, but is also clearly reluctant to use that military for its most historically valid purpose: protection of national interest. In the words of Krauthammer, "They like their power pure."
The United States is, to them, the great arbiter of justice. It does not sully itself with considerations for its own interests. It's a nice picture, to think that the citizens of the world will cheer the servicemen and women of the United States because they represent peace and protection.
But it's an ideology that doesn't take hold with the public. Conservative ideology makes much more sense to the average American: Keep the military at home unless it's time to kill somebody.
Granted, that's oversimplified, but the basic axiom is true. Conservatives will hold that unless United States interests are clearly threatened, then it's none of our concern. The notion of what constitutes a threat to national interest is, of course, open for debate, but at least it's an argument the conservatives can win.
It's relatively straightforward to claim that if Saddam Hussein is left alone, he will develop weapons of mass destruction and become a threat to national security.
It's something of a chore to explain why our soldiers need to go to a small African country and help the U.N. feed people because vicious warlords are stealing food aid - especially when our soldiers wind up dead in the process, as happened in Somalia.
As a dedicated liberal, it's frustrating to watch. Liberals in Congress raise their voices in opposition to a war that they view as devoid of a moral imperative. If Saddam Hussein is deposed, life will be easier for America, but there are no guarantees that the Iraqi people will be any better off under somebody else.
Meanwhile, they are pilloried by the Bush administration as hindering the "war on terrah" and branded peaceniks and cowards by their conservative colleagues busy toeing the party line.
The quandary is made even more maddening by the arrogant quality of American power. And it is indeed well founded. Iraq would almost certainly fall to the might of the United States military, and a military victory would be viewed nearly unilaterally as a success by the American people, whether it was the right thing to do or not. It's hard to argue with American armor rolling through the streets of Baghdad.
This circumstance would again put liberals on the defensive, seeming to criticize a victorious conservative president.
Of course, this scenario may never come to pass, but the possibility of war inches closer and, sadly, my crystal ball is broken. While national interest may be a historically valid basis for the use of military force, the world has shown a disturbing reluctance recently to follow historical trends. Today's peaceniks and cowards may be more insightful than any of us can imagine.
Chris Kotterman is a political science and journalism senior. Reach him at chris.kotterman@asu.edu.
