John Duncan Models Himself After Eisenhower

2009 has been a year of angst for the Republican Party. With the GOP’s massive electoral losses in 2008, it’s been clear that the Republican message has not matched well with the priorities of American voters. So, Republicans have been busy, discussing amongst themselves how they might change to become more successful.

Some, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, have been loudly declaring that all the Republicans need is to become even more extreme, running further to the right. Others, however, are looking for ways to adapt Republican principles to incorporate some progressive ideals.

Tea Party activists have embraced traditionally progressive anger at Corporate Welfare. Still, their blind faith in the idea that government action is inherently bad remains a serious point of alienation from mainstream politics. Their opposition to health care reform makes for a poor match with progressive values.

Congressman John Duncan, a Republican from Tennessee, shows another possible route for Republicans to gain ground in the 2010 elections: Appeal to anti-war activists frustrated with the Democrats’ refusal to act strongly in opposition to the ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Republican politicians still are determined to adopt as persistent a pro-war posture as possible. Duncan, however, has spent the last few years developing an anti-war stand as a Republican.

Yesterday, Representative Duncan gave a speech in Congress that many liberals could appreciate. He spoke in opposition to President Obama’s decision to escalate the American military occupation of Afghanistan, saying,

“We are now going to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, in addition to the 68,000 already there. The Pentagon tells us it costs $1 million a year for each soldier there, or $1 billion for each 1,000. This means we will be spending over $100 billion a year on top of the almost half a trillion we’ve spent on the 8-year-old Afghanistan war already.

I know that, like any gigantic bureaucracy, the Defense Department always wants more money and more employees, but this is getting ridiculous. And fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. On top of all this, we still have 120,000 troops in Iraq and are still spending megabillions there. And the Pentagon is so bureaucratic that we are told it will take several years to fully withdraw, if we ever do.

President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, but I think even he would be shocked. This is all about money and power, but we can no longer afford to lose so many lives and spend and borrow so much money.”

John Duncan, is, of course, no liberal. On social and economic matters, he supports right wing policies. Yet, Duncan has been able to summon an honestly Republican response to expensive, strategically-deficient wars, though to find Republican foundations for such a position, he had to dig back almost 60 years to the Administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Will other Republicans seeking to keep or to gain new congressional seats in 2010 follow his lead?