From page 187 of Peter Beinart’s interesting book, “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.”
In fact, liberals and conservatives don’t merely take different positions on international issues; they hold fundamentally different views about which international issues matter:
More than four months after the 2004 election, the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation asked self-described liberals and conservatives to rate their top two foreign policy goals. Conservatives were 29 points more likely to mention destroying Al Aqeda, 26 points more likely to mention nuclear weapons to hostile groups or nations, and 24 points more likely to mention capturing Osama bin Laden.
In fact, while conservatives, and Americans in general, cited destroying Al Qaeda as their highest priority overall, for liberals, it tied for tenth. . . .
That conclusion was underscored by a November 2005 M.I.T. survey, which found that only 59 percent of Democrats — as opposed to 94 percent of Republicans — still approved of America’s decision to invade Afghanistan. And only 57 percent of Democrats — as opposed to 95 percent of Republicans — supported using
troops “to destroy a terrorist camp.” . . . . U.S.
America badly needs an alternative vision — rooted in the liberal tradition — for fighting global jihad. And yet the liberalism emerging today denies that fighting global jihad should even be a priority.
Actually, there already is a vision rooted in the liberal tradition for fighting global jihad. It’s called neo-conservatism.
Beinart’s book has a good title, but a misleading subtitle. Over in the Democratic Party, there are no liberals left (with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who may be booted out soon). They’ve all become “progressives.”
If by “liberals,” Beinart means “progressives,” he should drop the subtitle of his book when it comes out in paperback. His book pretty much proves the opposite.