Detecting A Pattern

"Our nation is stronger when we work with our friends and negotiate with our enemies."

Ned Lamont, August 1, 2006

Consider the positions of the left side of the political aisle on some of the top foreign threats of the day.

On American policy regarding North Korea, the argument from the left, and Democrats in general, is that the six party talks are a failure, and that the Bush administration ought to sit down and talk directly with Kim Jong Il. They urge the administration to begin with the concession of a security guarantee, ensuring that America will never attempt to depose the regime.

In Iran, the argument from the left and Democrats is that the attempts to let Great Britain, France, and Germany take the lead in negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program have resulted in a failure. They contend that the Bush administration ought to reestablish diplomatic relations with Tehran and sit down and talk directly with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, beginning with the concession of a security guarantee, ensuring that America will never attempt to depose the regime.

In Syria, the argument from the left and Democrats is that attempts to isolate Bashir Assad's regime have been a failure, and that the Bush administration ought to sit down and talk directly with Mr. Assad, beginning with the concession of a security guarantee, ensuring that America will never attempt to depose the regime, and perhaps pressure Israel to give up part or all of the Golan Heights.

In the current conflict with Israel, the Democrats generally spent the last month demanding an immediate ceasefire, and urged Israel to sit down will all parties and negotiate a lasting settlement that resolves the concerns of everyone, including Hezbollah. You know, the group that blew up the Marine barracks in 1983.

Are we detecting a pattern here?

The Republicans can argue that if you're willing to sit down and begin discussions by making unilateral concessions to North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, really, what's the enormous distinction from sitting down with Al-Qaeda? Just what does any nation or group like Hezbollah have to do before a Democrat says, "that's it, there's no point in talking to these people?" The solution to all of these matters may not necessarily be military force. But in each case, voices of the left and Democrats have said, "our best option is to be the first to take the military option off the table, sit down and talk with them." And, by extension, trust them, and sign treaties with them.

Are the American people frustrated and tired by televised images of carnage in Iraq enough to prefer the Democratic approach?

One might be inclined to say yes, judging from recent polls. But these polls may be misread. A significant chunk of the American people are Jacksonian — as in "Andrew Jackson" at their core — rarely interested in international affairs and seeking to avoid foreign entanglements … until a threat to one's "own" arises.

Jacksonians have no appetite for nation-building, no patience for the long and difficult struggle from dictatorship to a free society. They simply don't care about Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd vs. Turk, as long as they keep their petty grievances and ancient disputes far from us.

But as soon as foreign populations do turn that rage against us — say, when Al-Qaeda and its ilk plot to bomb airliners crossing the Atlantic, or Iran and Syria assist Iraqi insurgents targeting our troops — then Jacksonians demand a scorched-earth response. They seek leaders willing to strike down upon our enemies with great vengeance and furious anger.

At their core, no matter how tired the American people are about Iraq, they're not of a passive character. They know men like Kim Jong Il, Mr. Ahmedinejad, Mr. Assad, and Mr. Nasrallah are bad news. They know they're not to be trusted. And they know they're not to be negotiated with.

Of course, it remains an open question whether in this year's elections, the contrast between the two parties can get through the noise of gas prices, conservative complaints about high spending, and pork, and so on.

Mr. Geraghty is a contributing editor at National Review. His first book,"Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership," will be published in September from Simon & Schuster.