Cold War Call to Action Wouldn't Ring True for Democrats Now

Yet the campaign debate, inexorably, focused more on Bush's actual decisions -- which produced tangible consequences in Iraq that Americans could see every night on television -- than on Kerry's alternative ideas, which never could be more than abstractions to voters. Bush, through his actions, succeeded in defining for a slight majority of Americans what it meant to be tough and resolute against terrorism. And that allowed him to portray Kerry as unsteady or weak for proposing a different direction. That's the advantage of incumbency.

Kerry's dilemma during the campaign is the Democratic dilemma now. In American politics, the party out of the White House is defined mostly by its reaction to the president's decisions, especially in foreign policy. Beinart is wise in counseling Democrats to highlight ideas for the war on terrorism that extend beyond criticizing Bush. But Kerry's experience shows that even when they do, the president will still set the terms of debate because he sets the direction for national security policy.

Until Democrats have a president who can fight the war on terrorism in a manner the party broadly supports, their message on national security will remain heavily negative -- and splintered. Without the White House, Democrats are more likely to fight with each other than coalesce behind a "fighting faith" for the long struggle against Islamic radicalism.

Ronald Brownstein's column appears every Monday. See current and past columns on The Times' website at www.latimes.com/brownstein.