Three Times As Divided As Vietnam
Does the West have the stomach to stand for what we believe in? Is there even a consensus as to what we believe in? I generally distrust doomsday scenarios as pointless nostalgia for good ol’ days that probably never were, but I must say the events of the last several months have begun to push me into the pessimist camp (as I’m sure you’ve no doubt noted). Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute has put some figures onto my somewhat vague discontent:
If there is anything that makes the case American politics are now the most polarized in history, it is the finding that the partisan divide over the Iraq War is three times as sharp today as it was during the Vietnam era.
That comparison might surprise some, given that the current conflict has claimed far, far fewer American lives – less than 2,600 compared to more than 50,000 in Vietnam — and provided much less overt political opposition than the war 40 years ago.
And, even those who oppose the war in Iraq would be hard-pressed to argue that there are not greater American interests at stake in the Persian Gulf today than there were in Southeast Asia in the 1960s.
Brown goes a step further and offers a hypothesis for this unease:
“Long-term” has become a matter of months, not years or decades. We want what we want when we want it. The shorter time horizon is evident in everything from the way businesses obsess over quarterly statements rather than multi-year returns, and the pressure on coaches in professional sports to win immediately or be fired, or that TV shows can be canceled after only three episodes.
One can only imagine what Franklin Roosevelt’s poll numbers would have been in the early years of World War II when the Japanese and the Germans were winning the war. But then, there weren’t gruesome television pictures bombarding Americans 24-hours a day, nor analysts telling anyone who read a newspaper or watched television about the potential catastrophe around the corner.
Or perhaps it is the fact that the Republicans, who are generally less wary of foreign intervention and the use of force, were the opposition party during much of the Vietnam era. They were not that opposed to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s war policy, and in fact, the major opposition came from within LBJ’s own party…
But with George Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress, the Democrats are the opposition party today. By their political nature they are more reflexively wary of using military force, and therefore this president enjoys little support for his policy among his political opponents.
Must frustrating to me is the fact that so many Americans, following the lead of the far left, seem to feel that we are on the wrong side of the Iraq War. Reflexive anti-Americanism has taken its toll on our culture. Brown concludes:
It is hard to understand why the partisan divide over Iraq is so much greater today when the objective cost of the war has been so much less than it was in Vietnam. But whatever the reason, it is not good news for American society.
To be clear, I’m not equating opposition to the war with anti-Americanism; Thomas Friedman recently pretty much threw in the towel on Iraq (sorry, TimesSelect – you can find it for free if you really want to) while acknowledging the nobleness of the mission. For every Friedman, however, there are a dozen Juan Coles saying we’re trying to destroy Lebanon and take over Iraq as a solution to ‘peak oil’, or Kevin Barretts spouting nonsense about 9/11 being an inside job.
What I’m saying is that too often, the ‘loyal’ is chopped off of ‘opposition’. We should be able to disagree without demonizing.
I’m not a warmonger. No one has to tell me that war is ugly, brutal, nasty stuff. It’s long been a truism, however, that sometimes war is the necessary path to peace. Do we still understand this as a society? I’m not sure…
Why does Thucydides hate America?
Andy, I’m not saying that we can will ourselves to victory in Iraq – but we can damn sure will ourselves out of it…
Sure, sure. But the first step is to take off the rose-colored glasses which made our foreign policy more Trotskyite than Burkean. Time to break out the smelling salts. [warning - big html file but well worth the read].
I may have been guilty of wearing rose-colored glasses six months ago, but I’ve taken them off. I’m not giving up on Iraq, but I’m very, very concerned. The progress since the last elections has been (get ready for the understatement of the year) insufficient. If the militias and terrorists can’t be subdued, it’s hard to see a satisfactory conclusion…
Just to be clear, this is what I meant when I said opposition to the war need not be un-American in character. Things have not gone well lately, it’s fair to say; whether that means it’s time to withdraw is something good, honest people can disagree on; it’s the tone of the disagreement, and the underlying ‘bad faith’ assumptions that bother me…
Peter Brown is partly right, but mostly wrong. Many more Americans breathe and live partisan politics now than in the late 60’s. Therefore, many more Americans hate President Bush for his stance against terrorism (because he is a Republican and won two close elections) than hated President Johnson for his stance against Communism. Nevertheless, the anti-war fervor now is nowhere near what it was in the late 60’s. The late 60’s really were a period of turmoil in America.
Perhaps those protesting the war now are not hallucinating as much as those who protested in the late 60’s; or perhaps the drugs have taken a toll on the current batch of anti-war zealots; or perhaps the drugs now are not as potent as in the late 60’s.
We are fortunate that adults are in charge now (not always the most competent adults, but still adults). Democrats can whine, and moan, and complain, and stand for peace all they want as the party in the minority. However, just as Olmert discovered, once in power, there is a moral obligation to conduct appropriate military operations. I have some doubt, but I still believe many Democrats will rise to the occasion and do the right thing in protecting democracy and Americans if they ever end up the majority.
Lord, I hope so…maybe Brown’s missing link is that the polls may show more people opposed to Iraq than Vietnam (or a bigger partisan gap, at any rate), but they are not as deep in their opposition, for the most part…that would be in keeping with the general shallowness of the culture…but I’m sounding rather elitist, aren’t I?
Hi Mark,
I don’t think it sounds elitist; I think it is sounds true. Sadly, the only Americans losing sleep over the Middle East are military families. Perhaps if more Americans had to make real sacrifices, and if more Americans had to hear a siren or the high pitch of an incoming missile in the middle of the night, Americans would not be such pacifists.
Isn’t it interesting how many of the anti-war left in Israel are whistling a different tune now?