Sheep in Hawk's Clothing

Some on the left, such as Peter Beinart in The New Republic, seem serious about reforming the Democratic Party. Apparently, Matthew Yglesias isn't one of them:

But if there's anything that left-of-center people of different stripes ought to be able to agree on it's that this won't do as a political strategy. Even if you don't think the "war on terror" should be a big deal, there's no denying that, in the eyes of the voters, it is a big deal, so Democrats need to say something about it. A lot of people on the left seem to have decided that the Cold War was exceptional and that the elections of 1992-2000 represent the norm and, therefore, national security will drop off the agenda soon enough. This seems clearly wrong. National security was a key campaign issue from 1988 all the way back to 1936, at least. The elections of 1916 and 1920 turned largely on foreign policy, and the question of imperialism factored heavily in the William Jennings Bryan campaigns around the turn of the century. As America has emerged throughout the 20th century as a major world power, the question of what to do with that power has usually been on the agenda and will pop up frequently as a voting issue for the foreseeable future.

Uh, Matt, "voters prefer authentic to ersatz." And "fake" defense won't protect America from terrorists. If Democrats are ever to be taken seriously for national office, they need to evidence a genuine interest in national security. Like a fake orgasm, a "fair-weather hawk" won't do.

(via Citizen Smash)