The Big Picture -- The 10,000-foot view
Conservatives are arguing on a number of fronts when it comes to national security. Their arguments may boil down to simple rhetorical lines about “weakness” and “appeasement,” but they start at an intersecting list of specific policies towards Iran, defense spending, Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel.
Your approach. The public discussion tends to ignore the elephant in the room: Successes against terrorism, an essential and built-in validation. Because President Obama does not fit well into the traditional caricature of liberals when it comes to national security, there is leverage to pivot into related security topics.
"Today the American people are safer and we’re focused on the threats of the future. Osama bin Laden is gone and most al Qaeda leaders are dead. The Iraq War is over and Afghanistan is winding down responsibly. Our alliances are stronger and Iran is isolated from the world. And we’re keeping trust with our veterans."
Iran & Expected Hits
The argument about Iran is tied closely to the neoconservative wing of the Conservative base – the same folks who told us that Iraq would be easy. Their argument is simple: “Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon every day and the Obama Administration has been weak in its response – sanctions won’t work and we’re being duped if we think they will negotiate. At this point, we probably have to attack before they can get a nuke.”
Your approach. The basic assumptions of the conservative argument are wrong for a number of reasons. The biggest problem is that they have created false time pressure and used it as leverage to make traditional attacks on a Democratic president. They assume it’s a winning issue for them – assumptions you should not make as well.
"Today, Iran is isolated from the world and surrounded by our allies – forced to the negotiating table by our tough sanctions. Even as military action has to remain an option, every day that goes by, we get stronger and they get weaker. Our military leaders and our allies aren’t sure military engagement short of invasion would make much of a dent, and no one wants another land war in the middle east."
Military Spending & Expected Hits
The discussion over defense spending coming from the right is predicated on two big assumptions: First, is that you can still tar a progressive over defense spending, and second that the right is winning the fight over taxes. Neither of these assumptions are true.
Your approach. The national narrative on spending and taxes has focused on the forced choice between any given program or priority and tax cuts for the wealthy. This forced choice works for defense spending while reminding Americans that we have a strong record on national security. The GOP has slowly painted itself into a box on this issue.
"Romney and Ryan would rather protect tax cuts for millionaires than fund the military. They’re holding military spending hostage. Military strategy should be determined by the threats we face, not election year politics."
The Big Picture. This is how we change the debate, from “more money is better” to “buying the tools to match the threats,” which is a winning and more correct approach. It also acknowledges that people are generally open to changing defense spending as long as we retain capabilities that keep America safe.
Swiftboating Obama?
Over the past few months, a couple of small groups of conservative military veterans have sought to undermine the President’s clear advantage on national security issues. Each of these groups has imploded, largely because they were quickly exposed as right-wing advocacy organizations with birther tendencies, rather than actually representing anyone in the military. Then, this last week, the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of US Special Forces criticized the groups for using the uniform to engage in politics. The most prominent of these groups, OPSEC, is expected to hold an event in Tampa.
Your approach. Very senior military leaders have already said all that needs to be said with more credibility than anyone else could.
"Our senior military leaders, including the head of Special Forces and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have made it clear that this type of politicization of the military is inappropriate and I stand by them. The President has made the tough calls as commander in Chief and our men and women have executed those orders with bravery and skill."
BONUS TOPIC: Energy
The energy space is moving quickly right now, even on the Hill. Senators who oppose the navy’s innovative biofuels programs are starting to back off. At the same time, Romney/Ryan announced an energy plan which stands in stark contrast to policies that will keep America safer. Your approach.
Military and national security validators have long made clear that clean energy keeps America safe. Not only is the Romney plan bad for our national security narrowly, but also because it doesn’t invest in the technology America needs to lead the world in new energy sources.
"Energy independence is a national security priority. Oil dependence will continue to fund America’s enemies and drain our economy until we invest in new technology – creating jobs and letting us lead the world in clean energy. Our military leaders say this is essential and it’s time for Congress, and Mitt Romney, to pay attention."
Policy Proof Points
- CAFE Standards. New standards mean less gas used and less oil purchased from countries that don’t share our values.
- Wind Production Tax Credit. Governor Romney opposes tax credits for wind power, even though GOP Senators from the Midwest have supported them strongly.
- DOD Energy Innovation. New legislation spearheaded by the Truman Project’s Operation Free campaign is making it easier for military bases to get off the grid and create their own clean energy sources.
