We are told the Democrats have just doomed their chance for the presidency by ousting Joe Lieberman from the Senate because of his pro-war stance. Jacob Weisberg has it all spelled out for us in Slate. According to this analysis, the Democrats have shown themselves well-steeped in antiwar rage, but woefully lacking in the fire and determination necessary to pursue the war on terror. This was the same prescription for disaster that afflicted the Democrats during the Vietnam War, and drove the voting public into the hands of the Republican “tough on defense” Party.

I remember wandering through the back of the crowd of fellow-students outside the Democratic Party convention at the Conrad Hilton hotel in Chicago in 1968. This was certainly an anti-war crowd with more than its share of rage. Arrayed in front of them was a phalanx of police on horses or standing with truncheons, and they looked menacing if not eager to enforce “law and order”. Things were ominous enough that I left the crowd before the attacks began, and saw the result that night on television.

Mr. Weisberg appears to have a peculiar memory or understanding of the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. Antiwar protests were occurring all over the country, some of them non-violent such as sit-ins, and others intentionally violent, such as the Days of Rage riots and the Weatherman bombings. Following the Kent State shootings, campuses everywhere erupted into protests, and many of these were violent.

The anti-war movement was the domain of privileged middle class and upper class kids who could afford college and obtain deferments from the draft. The actual fighting in Vietnam was undertaken by lower class men who couldn’t make it to college, and often these kids came from blue collar families. There was a social divide between the anti-war protestors and much of the rest of the country, including the soldiers and marines in Vietnam. There was also a clear generational divide between the baby boomers who comprised the bulk of the antiwar movement (and who didn’t trust anyone over thirty), and working adults who were confused and startled at how alienated their children seemed to be.

I remember also the director of alumni affairs telling me that most of my fellow students - who were very liberal, willing to experiment with drugs and sex, and certainly antiwar - would in 25 years become solid, conservative Republicans. This seemed to me shocking if not stupid, but of course it turned out to be true. It was, he said, the way of the world, especially when people owned cars and homes and had something to protect.

In 1968 the voters turned against the antiwar movement, and again in 1972 when the Democratic candidate for president was George McGovern, because the riots, disruptions, and antisocial behavior associated with the antiwar movement were seen as threats to civil order. Moreover, the Vietnam War was a Democratic Party fiasco, started by Kennedy and expanded greatly by LBJ. Given this, voters were much more willing to put their trust in the party out of power, and they therefore handed the White House twice to Richard Nixon.

The Vietnam era is far removed politically, socially, economically and culturally from today. The Iraq War is first of all a decidedly different military adventure – a war of choice which, when weapons of mass destruction were not found, became a war of aggression. At that point, the moral purpose for the war vanished, whereas in Vietnam many Americans continued to the very end to believe that fighting Communism was noble and essential for our security. The Iraq War has been telescoped in time when compared to the Vietnam War. We now know in three years that the U.S. is in a quagmire and cannot dictate even basic social order in Iraq, much less determine the military outcome. It took well over a decade to learn that truth in Vietnam.

There are no mass public protests against the Iraq War. Soldiers and marines are admired if not venerated, along with the military in general. Desertion from the military is far less frequent today, and even though recruiting is down, there is a high rate of retention among troops who feel strong camaraderie with their platoon members in Iraq. Death and injury are still horrific, but they are far less visible to the public than during the Vietnam War. The country is far more conservative; many of those baby boomers did indeed grow up to be Republicans.

Nonetheless, 60% of Americans are now opposed to the Iraq War and are seeking a way out of this mess. Since they do not blame the military for this disaster, they are left to blame George Bush, his administration, the Congress, and all things Republican, since the Republican Party has all the federal political power in this country.

You have therefore a social mood of festering discontent and anxiety over the Iraq War, but no antiwar movement to blame, no generational divide to worry over, and nothing but respect for a military caught in a horrific situation. Since that leaves only the Republican Party at fault, it is a vast stretch to suggest – as Weisberg does – that suddenly now the Democrats are stepping forward to accept the mantle of blame and alleviate the Republican Party of this awful burden.

By dumping a pro-war senator and replacing him with a candidate who is opposed to the war, the Democrats – or at least the voters in Connecticut – are stating the obvious: something is terribly wrong with the Iraq War and something needs to be done about it. The Democrats are following public opinion on this matter, not leading it. The public is certainly not stupid about all this – the responsibility for this war and the failure it represents sits firmly and irrevocably with the Republican Party, no matter how many antiwar candidates are fielded by the Democrats. This is the one thing today that is consistent with the Vietnam era, and that Weisberg conveniently forgets: the voters are turning to the party out of power rather than trust those who created the problem.

Weisberg sides completely with the Karl Rove theory that the Democrats, by opposing the war, are showing their traditional weakness on defense, especially relating to the war on terror. There is certainly some truth to this, more so because the Republicans continue to conflate the Iraq War with the 9/11 attacks. Recent surveys show most Americans believe weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, but the survey questions can be over-interpreted. People can believe there were some such weapons, but they also seem to hold the belief that these were not a serious threat to the U.S. after all, since a large majority now think the war was a mistake. On related surveys, Democrats rank equal to or right behind the Republicans in public confidence as to which party can better handle terrorism. In fact, the Democrats used to lag seriously behind the Republicans in this area, and their advancement to parity has mirrored the public’s disenchantment with the war overall.

As confidence in the White House and the Republican Congress diminishes with the worsening situation in Iraq, confidence in the Democrats to fight terror effectively increases. Maybe it is simply because the Democrats are the only place for the nation to turn to in dealing with this problem, but Weisberg chooses to ignore the growth in public confidence in the Democrats, just as he imagines that being seen as the antiwar party will ruin Democratic prospects for the White House.

One final argument is implicit in what Weisberg writes, and that is that the Democrats have come up with no plan for fixing the situation in Iraq. This is a monstrously ironic argument. The Republican Party has created what is probably the nation’s greatest foreign policy disaster, which has taken a country at the very top of its form in terms of military strength, moral standing, global leadership and respect, and economic power, and trashed all these things, to the permanent detriment of the U.S. The Republicans then accuse the Democrats of having no plan to fix all this. Where does one start to fix a litany of errors that will have negative impact for generations?

What is needed is not so much a specific plan for Iraq, but a specific ability for the Democrats to be not Republicans. In other words, the Democrats have to present to the electorate a party that restores realism in governance, that emphasizes competence over ideology, that holds officials accountable for errors, that respects fundamental Constitutional rights, that puts faith in the judicial process rather than in torture and secret tribunals, that values cooperation and consultation with allies rather than confrontation, that requires the Congress to provide checks on executive authority (especially in the area of expenditure and audits), and that is capable of aggressively identifying and tracking down America’s true enemies as opposed to its imaginary enemies.

Without this basic competence, without an ability to perceive the world as it really is, without the trust of our traditional allies abroad, and without a respect for America’s traditions and Constitution, what good is a plan to fix Iraq? Yes, the Democrats will have to present at least the options they will pursue in Iraq, but it is sufficient to be not the Republicans. The American public is slowly assimilating the dreadful truth about this administration and the Republican Party. The public is clearly understanding that it was misled about the Iraq War and that the Republicans offer no leadership whatever in dealing with this situation.

What the Democrats need first and foremost is to explain to the public how they will govern, and how this will differ from the incompetence, moral vacuity, irrationality, secrecy and obstinacy even in the face of failure that are the hallmarks of the Republican Party. All else follows. And a very good first step in this process is to present candidates, like Ned Lamont, who will tell the voters the truth about the Iraq War.