At some level the Democrats should be grateful to Bush, as it has largely been his overwhelming mendacity that made their party look appealing by comparison, to everybody from disgruntled conservatives to diehard leftists. The party did not need to change all that much to get the benefit, as long as it managed to present itself as opposing Bush and let him have enough rope to hang himself. That strategy may have cost them the 2004 presidential elections, as nobody could accuse John Kerry of providing a real alternative to Bush, only a slightly more sensible version of Bush, but by “heightening the contradictions”, with the War on Iraq and Katrina, the 2008 elections are almost in the bag. And that without making the party more leftwing, or less part of the Washington establishment.
Which probalby means that if a Democratic candidate wins the presidential elections next year and takes residence in the White
House in January 2009, we should not expect too much from them. The wider Waar Against Terror will certainly continue and even the War on Iraq is not likely to be ended abrubtly. In fact, while the Democrats may take cautious steps to end the US occupation of Iraq, expect belligerent behaviour towards Iran to continue unabated. The War on Afghanistan will of course continue.
Why do I expect all this? Because nothing in the Democrat’s recent history has lead me to believe they’re uncomfortable with
humanitarian interventions; quite the opposite, as they, unlike the Republicans, actually believe in them. Remember the liberals’ last great cause, Kosovo?