The Democrats had two main problems in 2004. They were seen as weak on foreign policy, and they were seen as offensively hostile to middle class values at home, specifically on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and the like.

There is a lot of hand-wringing over Kerry and how he was a bad candidate. But his faults were a reflection of the party’s incoherence on foreign policy and its strong constituencies in favor of the controversial social positions the party has taken. Just as Republicans cannot write off 40% of their base–the religious right–in the interests of courting moderates, Democrats cannot easily jettison feminists, ethnic chauvinist groups, gay rights activists, or the substantial constituency of pacifists in their ranks.

That’s a big problem, though. National security is on people’s minds. While Bush has been widely mocked for appealing to people’s fears, those fears of terorism are rational fears. After all, America was attacked, and others have been apprehended planning similar, horrific attacks. Either party’s candidate must deliver a coherent, compelling case on national security. Both party’s bases are effectively locked up; the Republicans won in 2004 because Bush convinced moderates that the Democrats were out of touch on social issues and that Bush had a greater commitment to national security, backed up by a proven willingness to take action. That is, that he was a leader.

As a patriotic American, this situation concerns me. Whoever is elected President should find his views on natioanl security within some acceptable range, neither end of which leads to significant American decline, or, worse, expedites it. One could imagine a mildly protectionist Democratic party, committed to economic programs to help the poor and working class, environmentalism, a balanced budget, and a realist foreign policy. Such a foreign policy might look something like this:

* It should shore up Democrats as the party of realism and limited interventions. No Iraqs, but no Rwandas and Bosnias either. Until now, it’s been the party of humanitarian intervention, except when US interests are at stake. Now the Republicans are on a worldwide crusading mission in the name of democracy. Democrats should say, “We’re all for democracy, and even agree that it’s good to promote it through foreign aid and other nonmilitary means, but it’s rarely the best way to impose it through military action. Compare the successes of Eastern Europe to the relative misery of Iraq.”

* It should promote a limited, reaslism-based defense of multilateralism. Iraq should be employed as an example of why multilateralism is important. Sometimes allies that criticize policy are right; and even if they’re wrong, it’s hard to win without their help. The effectiveness of multilateral coalitions in the first Gulf War should be contrasted with the problems of the Second.

* It should criticize Bush and the Republicans on tactical grounds, specifically the failure to build up the military’s numbers after 9/11, the failure to invest in nuts-and-bolts gear needed to win limited wars against terrorists and their sponsers, and the woeful failure of the Bush administration to reform the intelligence apparatus. Bush’s bestowal of the presidential medal of freedom on the failure-of-a-CIA-director Tenet was the icing on the cake of the administration’s failures to shake things up when ineffective people screwed up, so long as they showed loyalty to the President.

Conservatives would prefer such a world, one where the two parties were fundamentally patriotic and committed to US national security, and, moreover, had intelligent views and reasonable disagreements about the subject. That is, a world where elections weren’t high-stakes contests where one party was literally out-to-lunch, wishing that we did not have the problems that we do.

But there’s no way the Democrats will do what I suggest. They believe in multilateralism out of some obsessed regard for procedure as an end in itself, unable to see that France had its own Realpolitik reasons for opposing us on the Iraq war. Their aversion to military spending would not support a big conventional build-up of forces or other necessary military actions, such as CIA/Special Forces actions in unfriendly countries like Syria. And, they instinctually like humanitarian interventions—Rwanda, Darfur—and oppose realism-based ones, such as Grenada and Iraq, even when there are humanitarian justifications coexisting with realist ones. Finally, the party’s spokesmen harp on the alleged injustice of the US—such as in Abu Gharib or Guantanamo—when such fall-out is inevitable in any war, and only proves that some heads need to roll for mismanagement, not that we’re on the wrong side.

The Democrats are trapped by these ideological convictions. Like Hamlet or Oedipus, the party is compelled by its deepest and most essential ideological impulses to be as senseless on foreign policy, as it is offensive on domestic policy. Kerry’s confused rhetoric, and Howard Dean’s recent extreme rhetoric, merely reflect the party and its members. Democrats should figure out that it’s not just a matter of picking better candidates; the party’s base needs to grow up.