Will the war drive Hillary to the left?
The war, the Dems & Hillary
By Pat Buchanan
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
WASHINGTON In June, I ventured a prediction: "A Eugene McCarthy will appear soon to pressure and challenge Hillary Clinton in 2008 if Hillary does not convert herself into an anti-war candidate ... ."
Observing the Cindy Sheehan protest, I updated the prediction last week: "September could see the coalescing of an anti-war movement that ... divides (the) Democratic Party ... ." So it has come to pass.
On Sunday's "Meet the Press," McCarthy emerged in the person of Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Monday, the top headline in The Washington Post read, "Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War." The opening paragraph:
"Democrats say a longstanding rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops."
In the long run, the Democratic Party stands to lose far more from this war than a GOP whose president led us into it. How can that be?
First, there is the Democrat complicity in taking America into war. In October 2002, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Kerry and Daschle voted for the war. Some voted their interests, not their consciences. They did it to get the war issue, which was working for the Republicans in 2002, behind them.
If Pentagon preparations for the war were deficient, why did the Democrat senators, who chaired all the relevant committees, fail to review the postwar plans of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith?
More dangerous for Democrats is that the growing split in their party is along the same fault line as the old Vietnam fissure. In 1964, only Sens. Gruening of Alaska and Morse of Oregon voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing war. But by 1967, Sen. William Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was hectoring Secretary of State Rusk, a revolt had broken out in Democrat leadership councils over the war, and anti-war teach-ins and demonstrations had been escalating for years.
The reason Democrats must worry today is that the anti-war movement taking shape is virulently anti-Bush; it is lodged, by and large, inside their party; it is passionate and intolerant; it has given new life to the Howard Deaniacs who went missing after the Iowa caucuses; and it will turn on any leader who does not voice its convictions.
Consider Hillary's predicament. She is saying she supports the war and the troops, but the war has been mismanaged and America needs new leadership. No risk there.
Hillary's problem is she is three years away from 2008, the anti-war movement increasingly looks on her as a collaborator in "Bush's War," and Democrats like Feingold are going to give anti-war militants the rhetoric and stances they demand. Hillary's most rabid followers will depart if she does not leave Bush's side -- to lead them.
The Democrats' dilemma is hellish. If this war ends successfully, Republicans get the credit. If it ends badly, Bush will be gone, but anti-war Democrats will be blamed for having cut and run, for losing the war and for the disastrous consequences in the Persian Gulf and Arab world.
And if there are terror attacks on U.S. soil, Americans may demand that we smash the terrorists and insurgents inside Iraq, to whom the anti-war movement will be accused of giving aid and comfort.
The history of America's wars is that wartime presidents win, unless -- like Truman and Johnson -- they quit. Then, they are succeeded by the more hawkish of the candidates the nation is offered.
Even in unpopular wars, the anti-war party is not necessarily the most rewarding place to be -- politically speaking.
Pat Buchanan edits The American Conservative magazine. |
