President Bush’s State of the Union address and the Democratic response illustrate the differences between their respective approaches to terrorism. After praising American soldiers for “bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent” the President described the efforts being taken to prevent terrorists from entering the country. This is the bare minimum to be expected of a sovereign government. A few minutes later he urged Congress to renew the Patriot Act so that law enforcement agents will have the legal means to monitor terrorist activity, disrupt cells, and seize assets. The Patriot Act has become a code word for law enforcement excesses and a sizeable contingent of Democrats applauded at the news it was going to expire. Regardless of the details of the Patriot Act, an aggressive policy of tracking down terrorists is an essential policy – for a government to do anything less would be negligent.

Then the President took an enormous step forward and explained the need to confront regimes that support terrorism. After describing American success in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya Bush explained this strategy both in terms of preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and as necessary to end the tyrannies that foster despair and anger through misrule and cruelty. In explaining the need for this dramatic step, the President referred to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 which was approached as strictly a law enforcement issue. 9/11 was a stark notice that this approach would not be adequate. Finally, building on the crucial point of spreading freedom in the Middle East as an antidote for terrorism, the President called for dramatic increases in funding Voice of America and the National Endowment for Democracy.

It is an ambitious and impressive program. Two ideas stand out:

1. That the best defense is a good offense.
2. Terrorism is a conscious act by a group of people to commit mass murder and that the means and motivation of such people needs to be reduced.

The Democrats did not offer a clear program, but Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offered two substantial criticisms of the Bush Administration’s foreign policies. The first was that Bush had not sufficiently sought international cooperation in the war on terror and the second was that homeland security efforts were inadequate. These are legitimate criticisms of the Administration, but they are not an alternative. On the first point, the Democrats simply assume that they would be more successful at acquiring international cooperation. They may be right – the Bush Administration had numerous policies that annoyed allies around the world. The ham-handed rejection of Kyoto and the steel tariffs particularly annoyed many allies. But, what if they could not have achieved the sufficient level of international support: would a Democratic Administration have declined to eliminate Saddam’s regime? What operations do the Democrats feel are essential to the war on terror, regardless of international support?

The second point gives another insight into the Democratic Party's worldview, searching containers and providing adequate communications technology to first responders. These are limited responses that on a certain level accept terror as a fact of life and seek to ameliorate its likelihood and its effect. Wise – but not sufficient. The American people want to hunt terrorists down and insure that they lose on every front, not build a wall and hide behind it. This is in striking contrast to the Bush worldview that sees terrorism as an act committed by people who can be deterred and neutralized.

In all fairness, individual Democrats have brought important ideas to the table. In his abortive presidential run, Sen. Graham of Florida highlighted the Hezbollah bases in Lebanon. Sen. Kerry is taking on the Saudis. Sen. Edwards gave an impressive statement about supporting democracy in the Middle East, and called for expanded funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. A serious debate about how to conduct the war on terror is worth having, and if the Democrats focus on defensive measures that debate will not occur. Then everyone loses.

One caveat: The President's program for released prisoners is very important and could make “compassionate conservative” more than a slogan. However, radical Muslim groups are organizing in America’s prisons. The President proposed funding faith-based groups. If extremist Muslim groups received federal funding to help rehabilitate released prisoners we would be creating opportunities for our own enemies. This is something that must be monitored very carefully.