What do National Security voters do now?

I’m critical of Republicans who’ve lost their way from First Principles rooted in limited government and of Democrats who’ve lost their way from most any principles outside of resurrecting the welfare state mentality and pelf thought to have been swept aside in the ‘90’s.

Yet, there’s still an underlying, consistent constituency in both parties called national security voters. Their interests are in a strong defense of America, Western values, and of those abroad who are oppressed or in whose lands or periphery dire threats to the West germinate and grow. National security voters are being either taken for granted or ignored by most Republican and Democrat leaders, treated as inconvenient to both’s overriding interest in controlling the government’s spending spigot to perpetuate their entrenchment and self-enrichment.

At the 1996 Republican Convention in San Diego, I was shut up when questioning a leading Republican pollster why he was ignoring national security issues, told that it wasn’t an important issue. Later, I asked George Shultz why this attitude prevailed. He shook his head and said that without a perception of threats, even though there were many, normal politics concentrated on the domestic.

Americans, Republican and Democrat and independent, have paid for that perception since, not only in 9/11 -- and awakening to the threats in Afghanistan and Iraq, where as many brave American troops have lost their lives – but as well in the increased division among Americans in being able to come together to address domestic needs.

The basic truth is that most Americans are pragmatic realists, who continue to be willing to defend vital interests and believe America is worthy of being unique, but not the realpolitik “realists” who acquiesce by abandoning faith in others in order to extend our comforts a while longer whenever the going gets tough nor the “moralists” who believe our values are easily transplanted.

A MIT poll in November 2005 had far more Republicans than Democrats thinking the war in Iraq “worth fighting”, but – although still more Republicans than Democrats – a majority of both parties’ adherents approved the use of U.S. military troops “to destroy a terrorist camp,” “to intervene in a region where there is genocide or a civil war,” and “to protect American allies under attack by foreign nations.” Only 6.5% of Democrats, 17% of independents, and 53.2% of Republicans, however, were willing to use U.S. troops to “assist the spread of democracy.”

The October 2006 Battleground poll from George Washington University found 92% of voters “believe that Washington puts partisan politics before the needs of the electorate,” while “45% think the War in Iraq is worth fighting; 57% think of the War in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism, and 49% support keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation is confirmed to be stable.”

These may be considered national security voters. Hardly enough by themselves to carry the day, but still close to majority, despite the disappointments in the “long war”, and a number that swells to overwhelming after successes or after direct attacks shift perceptions. The problem is, like in 1996, after may be too late to prevent, and successes don’t just happen but require focus and perseverance.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds comments on the 60-year “security blanket” the U.S. has provided Europe: “I'd like to see a timetable for getting troops out of Europe. It's time they took responsibility for their own security and stopped their childlike dependence upon / resentment of America. They need to work on more responsible democratic institutions, too. The Iraqis I'll give a bit longer.”

The psychiatrist of Shrinkwrapped blog focuses on the Left’s opinion elite “dirty little secret”: “In order to avoid the deeply hidden questions, maintain consistency in their rationalizations, and continue to retroactively justify their anti-Vietnam War beliefs, the anti-War campaigners are willing to once again abandon people who trusted us….We should not rationalize our failure of will as a triumph of morality; we did that once and it was the height of immorality.”

They may shout loudly, and dominate major media, but time and again they are shown not to represent the voice -– or conscience -- of America and Americans.

The main reason most Democrat leaders may restrain themselves from forcing an abandonment of Iraq is they don’t want to again pay the 40-year electoral price of national security weakness. The main reason that most Republican leaders may restrain themselves from acquiescing in abandonment is to not lose their advantage among national security voters. It’s up to you to remind both on which side their electoral bread is buttered. Both may lack principles, but not self-interest.