Thursday, May 31, 2007

Nixon '68   [Jonah Goldberg]

Brink Lindsey and Ross Douthat see past as prologue in this Nixon ad calling for an honorable end to the Vietnam war.

They might be right. But, this raises an interesting question: Which Democrat could plausibly run such an ad? Frankly, with the exception of Joe Lieberman, it's hard to see how any of them could play the Nixonian peace-with-honor card. That's because the analogy breaks down when you look at the nature of the two parties, both in '68 and today. Vietnam spelled the end of Democratic hawkish internationalism and, to a certain extent, the beginning of a new Republican era of hawkish internationalism (there are important caveats to be made about the GOP, but irrelevant to this discussion).

When Richard Nixon promised an "honorable end" to the Vietnam war it had specific resonance because of Nixon's record as an anti-Communist hawk. Anti-Communists trusted that Nixon understood the real threat of Communism. Hillary may have — until recently — burnished her hawkish credentials, but she's hardly a Democratic Nixon. And her supporters are hardly the war-on-terror equivalent of raging anti-Communists. Does anyone think that Hillary is particularly passionate about the Islamist threat? Is there anything like a Nixon-to-China move she could pull off? And the rest of the Democratic field is far more dovish than Hillary. 

The irony here is that the most likely candidate to run the most persuasive Nixonian strategy would be one of several Republicans. McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson or even (especially?) Gingrich could all pull off this sort of ad better than any of the Democrats. Of course, it would have to be a bit more subtle. But the point remains that the '08 Democrats — their real advantages notwithstanding — are not poised to be the Republicans of '68.

05/31 10:35 AM