A Scoop Jackson IS Needed

[Annie]

I wish for a Daniel Moynihan all the time. That was when there were some honorable men in the legislature. laugh: Not that they couldn't fight, it's just that they thought some before doing so!)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002632662_sundayfroma20.html

Froma Harrop / Syndicated columnist
Someone like Scoop

The Democrats need a candidate like a Democrat they used to have. He was Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a hawk abroad, a liberal at home. From 1941 until his death, in 1983, Jackson represented Washington state in Congress. He spent his last 30 years in the Senate. Until Democrats find someone with his kind of credibility on national security, they are not going to win the White House.

Jackson was the last Truman Democrat. As such, he believed that America should help working people but had to win the Cold War. Jackson's worldview was forged in the lesson of Munich: that appeasing Nazi Germany led to World War II and the death camps. Jackson understood that totalitarians view weakness with contempt — and offering them one-sided concessions just made them more dangerous.

People forget that from World War II through the Kennedy years, Democrats led the way on national defense. Republicans were held back by their isolationist wing and a resistance to government spending.

As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Jackson roasted President Eisenhower for putting budget caps on defense spending. He blamed that policy for "the missile gap" then favoring the Soviets. "The richest country in the world," Jackson declared in 1960 while campaigning for John F. Kennedy, "can afford whatever it needs for defense."

Jackson was the father of neoconservatism, a legacy that troubles some Democrats today. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz all worked for or with him. These Jackson alumni planned and promoted the Iraq war.

But what would Jackson have thought about Iraq? That the war's architects learned about the world at Jackson's knee might suggest approval from the great beyond.

"Jackson would have been very pleased by the performance of his disciples," asserts Robert G. Kaufman, author of "Henry M. Jackson: A Life in Politics."

"Jackson identified the root cause of the Cold War as a messianic ideology and totalitarianism," says Kaufman, professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. He would have seen similar root causes in 9/11.

Other readings of Jackson do not draw such slam-dunk conclusions. Jackson's support of a strong defense did not necessarily translate into an appetite for marching into war — especially in the Middle East. In 1982, Jackson slammed President Reagan's decision to send peacekeepers into Lebanon, and for reasons that might resonate today. Citing the volatile mix of Christians, Shiites, Sunnis and Druze, he insisted that Lebanon was no place for American troops in a police role.

"The danger of Americans being killed, the danger of divisiveness that would accrue from those developments ... are all too real," Jackson said on "Face the Nation." "A superpower should not play that kind of role in a cauldron of trouble, because sooner or later we are going to get hurt."

So Jackson very well might have opposed going into Iraq. But here is the point for Democrats: Jackson could have taken that position, and no one would have questioned his determination to defend America.

John Kerry did not inspire similar confidence. Voters didn't need him to declare the war a brilliant concept. By the 2004 election, unease over the wisdom and execution of the war was already growing. What voters wanted, and didn't get, was a more general sign of resolve to confront the terrorist threat. Had pro-choice women who were worried about terrorism — the so-called security moms — not abandoned Kerry, he would have won.

Jackson was often mocked as "the senator from Boeing." And without a doubt, he helped send a lot of defense dollars to his home state. But he famously opposed the sale of AWACS radar planes to Saudi Arabia, which would have been a very big deal for Boeing. Jackson feared the aircraft would pose a threat to Israel's security.

He was also seen as being overly beholden to Israel. And it was true that Jackson cared deeply about the Jewish state's survival. But again, American interests remained paramount. He showed little patience for Menachem Begin's biblical claims to the West Bank. And when Israel invaded Lebanon without first consulting with the United States, Jackson read it the riot act. "This can't continue and still have public support for the state of Israel," he declared.

In recounting Scoop Jackson's enthusiasm for a robust defense, we mustn't overlook that he was as much a liberal as he was a hawk. Jackson supported proposals for national health care, starting with President Truman's. He was a staunch friend of labor and an unswerving supporter of civil rights.

Jackson was a square. A son of Norwegian immigrants, he believed in the blue-collar ethic of hard work and obeying the law. His personal life was spotless.

Right-wingers hated Jackson. In 1952, the red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy campaigned against him. Even as Jackson offered strong support for Ronald Reagan's defense buildup, the conservative Richard Viguerie targeted him for defeat. "He has got a lot to answer for," Viguerie said in 1982, "you know, like his 100-percent AFL-CIO voting record."

By the time Jackson ran for president, in 1972 and 1976, Cold War liberals had gone out of fashion. The trauma of Vietnam had soured the party on a militarily assertive America, and Jackson could not get his party's nomination.

In the post-9/11 world, Scoop Jackson seems fresh again. And Democratic candidates would do well to speak his language on national security. Their job is to pair a liberal agenda with an uncompromising toughness toward external threats. Scoop Jackson proved it can be done.

 

[William Joyce]

Interesting article, K.

Scoop was tough to unravel, but I think biographer Kaufman (a Jew) is probably wrong to say that Jackson would be "pleased" with his "disciples," Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz (interesting term for a group of Jews following a gentile!)

Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz flocked to Jackson becaue their loyalties were with Israel, not the United States, and back then, Jackson was a fierce opponent of the Soviet Union, which later supported Arabs. And, I gather he supported Israel, but not in the sort of way his Jewish acolytes did. It's also inaccurate to say that Scoop Jackson was the "father" of neoconservatism --- that "honor" goes to the Jewish red diaper babies in New York who correctly predicted that the Soviet Union would cease to be a useful vehicle for Jewish interests and that the U.S. military could serve them better. These are the Kristols, the Podhoretzes, the Krauthammers and the rest, aided and abetted by the all-Jewish "Commentary" and "Weekly Standard" magazines and the nearly all-Jewish "National Review."

Jackson was arguably more concerned with our nation than Israel, though his pro-Israel stance no doubt made him the Saint of Washington he's been deemed by Moynihan, George Will and other smart men who should know better. Unlike a true patriot, Joe McCarthy, who is today the Devil of Washington because he dared to oppose the Jewish communist takeover of our country. Witness Hollywood's never-ending denunciations of him (Geo. Clooney is the latest to engage).

I can't see Scoop Jackson supporting the War for Israel now unfolding in Iraq because he didn't exhibit nearly the same bloodlust for enemies of the Jews as the neocons. He was, unlike the Jewish neocons today, willing to criticize Israeli excesses. If his concern today was as then --- for American security --- he would support a less lopsided foreign policy with respect to Israel, which is the source of the threats to us.

 

[Annie]

Interesting article, K.

Scoop was tough to unravel, but I think biographer Kaufman (a Jew) is probably wrong to say that Jackson would be "pleased" with his "disciples," Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz (interesting term for a group of Jews following a gentile!)

Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz flocked to Jackson becaue their loyalties were with Israel, not the United States, and back then, Jackson was a fierce opponent of the Soviet Union, which later supported Arabs. And, I gather he supported Israel, but not in the sort of way his Jewish acolytes did. It's also inaccurate to say that Scoop Jackson was the "father" of neoconservatism --- that "honor" goes to the Jewish red diaper babies in New York who correctly predicted that the Soviet Union would cease to be a useful vehicle for Jewish interests and that the U.S. military could serve them better. These are the Kristols, the Podhoretzes, the Krauthammers and the rest, aided and abetted by the all-Jewish "Commentary" and "Weekly Standard" magazines and the nearly all-Jewish "National Review."

Jackson was arguably more concerned with our nation than Israel, though his pro-Israel stance no doubt made him the Saint of Washington he's been deemed by Moynihan, George Will and other smart men who should know better. Unlike a true patriot, Joe McCarthy, who is today the Devil of Washington because he dared to oppose the Jewish communist takeover of our country. Witness Hollywood's never-ending denunciations of him (Geo. Clooney is the latest to engage).

I can't see Scoop Jackson supporting the War for Israel now unfolding in Iraq because he didn't exhibit nearly the same bloodlust for enemies of the Jews as the neocons. He was, unlike the Jewish neocons today, willing to criticize Israeli excesses. If his concern today was as then --- for American security --- he would support a less lopsided foreign policy with respect to Israel, which is the source of the threats to us.

Wow, I'm impressed that you got there from here.