Common Sense?

“Since the President won't act to keep our ports safe, we will.” That is Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) letting all of us know, in case we were inclined to doubt, that he and his Democrats will be more than happy to do the heavy lifting in case Bush and his Republicans ever get too complacent in the War on Terror. Menendez has made good on his promise, joining Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in introducing legislation to ban “foreign governments” from having control over American ports.

Not to be rhetorically outdone, Clinton sets things in context. “In the post-9/11 world, we cannot afford to surrender our port operations to foreign governments.” Then, in a bout of true tautological brilliance, she continues, “Port security is national security and national security is port security.” Voila! This will answer whatever questions the liberal opposition may have. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who signed onto the legislation, delivers the coup d’grace: "Common sense dictates that in this post-9/11 world, foreign countries should not run our ports or other infrastructure. The fact that we have to fight for this wise policy is mind boggling.”

Boxer’s concern for total domestic sovereignty is touching, yet it is precisely on this score that the Democrats are miserable failures (to borrow a quote form one of their own), and where their posturing should revolt more critical minds. The legislation introduced is as undemocratic as the vetting process that allowed Dubai Ports World to take over British P&O in the first place and demonstrates the Democrats’ inability to engage in truly critical debate with the assumptions of the ruling party. They (rightly) see a golden opportunity here to outshine the Republicans on their home turf of national security, but in so doing they have once again failed to provide any meaningful opposition to the policies of the War on Terror or to foster anything like a popular dialogue in the public sphere.

Against Senator Boxer, we reply that there is nothing common-sensical about the current national security strategy. The assumption that there is constitutes Error No. 1 in a critical approach to the issue. In the near-monologue over national security, huge swaths of assumptions have been linked together to create a plexus of existential threat under which no meaningful debate can take place. The Democratic Party has been a hand-in-glove partner in this process, even as, from time to time, they sing different notes from the Administration. But the harmony produced is unaltered.

As Dennis Perrin over at Red State Son notes “Not only does this remind us that the War on Terror is a crock, it emphasizes all too well that no real opposition to the corporate status quo exists, at least in the ownership parties. Instead of examining the business-as-usual aspect of the Dubai Ports deal, and how the American ruling elite and their political lackeys benefit from such global financial arrangements, liberals prefer to fan nativist flames for domestic political gain, especially in a mid-term election year.”