"The Agenda Is War"

Andrew Sullivan:

If the Democrats cannot adequately warn Americans of the dangers of a hotheaded temperament and uber-neo-con mindset in the White House for another four years, they deserve to lose. If Americans decide they want a president who will be more aggressive and less diplomatic than the current one, then they should at least brace for the consequences - for their economy and their security. In my view, the fear card has only one truly compelling target in this election: McCain.

I agree that this issue deserves more emphasis. Over the past few weeks I've wondered if an updated, nuanced (and ultimately less ironic, hopefully) version of this is needed:





The problem, as I noted a few posts ago, is that October 1962 has long since faded from our national memory. That sort of fear is unknown in this country, and has been for decades. There are lots of hot-button issues right now, from the economy to Iraq to gas prices. The threat of war -- not the Middle East adventurism type, but the ICBMs-flying-over-the-North-Pole type -- simply isn't one of those issues. But it should be. And for anyone who's been paying close attention, it is. It's neither hyperbole nor hysteria to say that if McCain wins, living in or near this country's largest cities will become decidedly less safe.

Remember, we know from several sources that during the early days of Bush's first term, there was deep anxiety in the White House about the economy. One imagines that the prospect of four years without something to focus and distract the public was not appealing, particularly for an administration that manifestly loathes the "hard work" and domestic policy nitty-gritty that governing entails. We know what happened after that. Would the dynamic be any different during the early days of a McCain presidency, with the economy in far worse shape than in early 2001 and a volatile, bellicose leader who has no idea how to fix it?