The long knives of the Democrats

I’ve discussed previously the role of foreign policy wonks as a leading indicator for presidential campaigns — click here, here, and here for more. What I haven’t discussed is what happens to those on the losing side of presidential campaigns. Franklin Foer’s New Republic cover story on the rise and fall of the inside the Beltway Deaniacs covers this, and as someone acquainted with a lot of the principals, it makes for scary reading. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

Last week, I called Ivo Daalder, an alumnus of Bill Clinton’s national security team, at his Brookings Institution office. And, while etiquette might dictate that Daalder lavish praise on the vanquished candidate, he spent our phone conversation critiquing Dean’s foreign policy. In Daalder’s view, the Vermont governor’s positions on Iraq range from the facile–“bringing into [Iraq] one hundred thousand Muslim troops that don’t exist”–to the self-destructive–“I didn’t like that he criticized the [Democrats] senators who voted for the eighty-seven billion dollars. We can’t get things right in Iraq without the funding.” What makes this rebuke of Dean’s foreign policy particularly odd is that Daalder was himself a primary architect of that policy. It was Daalder who helped draft the speech Dean delivered at the Pacific Council for International Policy last December, outlining his approach to national security. In foreign policy interviews Dean gave to The Washington Post and The New York Times a day before that speech, Daalder sat by the governor’s side. Similarly, it was Daalder who presided over a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club, when the Dean campaign unveiled its foreign policy team. According to one of his Brookings colleagues, who watched a procession of high-powered Democrats traipse to Daalder’s office to pay respect to Dean, “Ivo was The Guy.” In the wake of Dean’s unraveling, however, Daalder is promoting a revisionist history of the campaign, where his status is downgraded to something significantly less than The Guy. “My position is that I’m happy to advise anyone.” He pauses before adding, “I don’t have a central role, and I never did.” Why is Daalder backpedaling so furiously? Because he understands that he could suffer payback for his Deaniac days….. By the time Dean began assembling his national security team, though, most of the Democratic foreign policy establishment–which is now heavily clustered at the Brookings Institution–was already quietly committed to the Kerry, Wesley Clark, and John Edwards campaigns (in the case of some wonks, all three at once). Without the party’s A-list names, the Dean campaign began searching for advisers in less glamorous quarters. For their foreign policy rollout, they signed up former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and former national security adviser Tony Lake–veterans of Clinton’s first term. But, in Democratic circles, Clinton’s first term is widely considered a low point in the party’s foreign policy, and, in any case, Christopher and Lake weren’t substantive advisers. So, last fall, Dean recruited two mid-level Clintonites from Brookings for his day-to-day needs, former Director of European Affairs at the National Security Council Ivo Daalder and former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice. For many in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Dean was seen as dangerous. They worried that his strident opposition to the Iraq war would revive old clichés about the party’s pacifism and that his claim that Saddam Hussein’s capture did nothing to enhance U.S. security would prove fodder for countless GOP ads. No one was more concerned on this score than Daalder’s Brookings colleague and occasional co-author, Michael O’Hanlon, who penned scathing op-eds in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times attacking Dean. O’Hanlon, who advises several of the candidates–including Kerry–told me, “More Democrats should have recognized [Dean’s] danger and spoken out against him.” Within Brookings, O’Hanlon’s pieces were seen as a direct assault on Daalder and Rice and a break with the institution’s genteel mores. One Brookings fellow describes them as “just bizarre. Forgive me, but that was personal, not professional.” Others at the think tank reported witnessing loud, uncomfortable hallway arguments between Daalder and O’Hanlon over Dean. At the time, Dean was still riding high, and–O’Hanlon’s attacks notwithstanding–so were Daalder and Rice. But now that Dean is done, Rice and especially Daalder may find their career prospects also dimmed. When I spoke with the foreign policy gurus who would likely stock a Democratic administration, they seemed to regard the Dean campaign as a debilitating black mark on one’s resumé. It doesn’t help Daalder that he took an aggressive posture during Dean’s glory days. Instead of privately conceding his candidate’s foreign policy shortcomings, Daalder defended him to the hilt. “After Dean delivered the line about Saddam’s capture, Ivo was quite animated in defending that sentence,” says one Brookings fellow. And, as a former Clinton administration official told me, “If you’re a policy adviser, you exist to stop lines like that from being delivered. And, if it gets delivered over your objections, you have an obligation to fall on your sword. This whole campaign causes me to question [Daalder’s and Rice’s] judgment.” As Kerry’s consolidation of power continues, rancorous debates over the Dean campaign will probably disappear from the hallways of Brookings. But that doesn’t mean that those disputes will be forgotten. One fellow at the Brookings Institution accuses Dean’s foreign policy advisers of “contributing to a [campaign] that could have helped their careers but hurt the party.” It doesn’t look like Brookings will be regaining its gentility any time soon.

Read the entire piece to see how AFL-CIO and the Democratic Leadership Council are handling the Deaniacs in their midst. [Wouldn’t this happen with Republicans as well?–ed. You’d think so, except that many (though not all) of the neoconservatives believed to be currently running U.S. foreign policy supported John McCain over George W. Bush in 2000.]