These
are very tricky times for conservatives in America. For starters, they
don't really have a candidate. OK, that's familiar. More unusual: They
don't really have an opponent to hate. Can that be? Conservatives
still hate Obamacare (even if whatever we have that isn't Obamacare
seems worse than any possible replacement could be). They still rant
and rave about the deficit and stimulus money and even about bailing
out their friends and relations. But the one thing that
conservatives cannot rant and rave about is what has been their most
predictable refrain since the Cold War: national security. Of all the
things President Obama has done to conservatives in America, this may
be the cruelest. He has taken away their national security argument. Democrats
are supposed to be "weak" on foreign policy, the kind of people who
love to talk about the UN instead of unilateral action; of diplomacy,
not airpower; of bringing the troops home, not sending more to serve
abroad. It is because Democrats are supposed to be (and, some would
say, often are) so many of those things that they end up wandering
around tank factories wearing silly hats. It is because they don't want
to be called any of those things that the party would jump to nominate
a candidate with military experience, even if he had more experience
opposing military positions than serving in them. Barack Obama is
definitely a different kind of Democrat. He is not afraid to be called
a liberal. On the other hand, by many liberals' lights, he isn't one. On
national security, perhaps to everyone's surprise, he has done exactly
what he said he would do. He said he would reduce American troop
presence in Iraq. He said he would put priority on Afghanistan and even
increase troops to get the upper hand. He said he would support efforts
to secure democracy around the world. Some days, liberals definitely
have a problem figuring him out. Is this our guy who is sending more
troops to Afghanistan? Our guy who has authorized bombing raids in
Libya? It is. He is the same man who gets credit for the killing of
Osama bin Laden, whom even Dick Cheney has to praise, and he is not the
host of "Celebrity Apprentice." How could such a thing happen to
conservatives in America? How do they attack a guy who is doing exactly
what they could only hope one of their own would do -- if he were to
manage what now seems the modern miracle of getting elected? They
look around. They look frustrated. Watch TV these days, and you'll see
a lot of frustrated conservatives, eyes darting in search of someone to
attack, forced to admit that they agree with Obama here and there and
everywhere -- but that it doesn't mean a single thing. As any
veteran of politics in the past 30 years can tell you, the sword is
stronger than the shield. Attack politics work. Getting people to hate
the other guy is almost always easier than getting them to like you.
Getting them to give money to take a stand against something invariably
yields more funds than an impassioned appeal to give money for a good
cause. So imagine the predicament for Republicans. Their best
strategists are already telling them it's time to back away from the
wedge issues that defined the party for decades. Opposing abortion
doesn't get you to 51 percent -- and may cost you that prize. Neither
does opposing gay rights. Gays in the military is history. Even
immigration has a politically dangerous downside. And now you're taking
away "weak on terrorism." What is an independent group loaded with
dough to do? Ask people to trust that the Republicans will be better on
Social Security? I don't think so.
To
find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators
Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website
at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
