Democrats set out on a suicide mission
Andrew Sullivan
March 03, 2002
It had to happen eventually. Last week saw the first attempt by the political opposition to mount a real attack on the war on terrorism. On Wednesday senators started subjecting Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, to withering questions about the expanding war effort.
“We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies, not so good at developing exit strategies,” opined Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. “If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that’s going to keep us going beyond doomsday,” he went on. “How long can we afford this? We went (to Afghanistan) to hunt down the terrorists. We don’t know where Osama Bin Laden is nor whether he is alive or not. We don’t know where Mullah Omar is hiding . . . When will we know we have achieved victory?” Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina chimed in: “We’ve got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion.” He went on, characterising the Bush administration’s argument as: “Since we’ve got a war, we’ve got to have deficits — and the war is never going to end.” He predicted that sooner or later, “this town is going to sober up”.
By Thursday, in what had the appearance of a co-ordinated campaign, the Democratic Senate majority leader Tom Daschle put the boot in: “Clearly, we’ve got to find Mohammed Omar, we’ve got to find Osama Bin Laden and we’ve got to find other key leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, or we will have failed.”
Failed. That’s a trial balloon for an argument this autumn. Senator Joseph Biden, one of the biggest blowhards in Washington, added more diplomatically: “I think the administration is rightfully proud of how far they’ve brought us from September 11. But I also think there’s a little hubris at work here.”
What’s going on? Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff? So far, the latter scenario seems the most likely. The latest polls show massive American public support for the war on terror and huge backing for taking the war to terrorist-sponsoring states aiming to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the enemy.
A Fox News poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, shows some subsidence of urgency among the public about the war, terrorism, security and related issues. But the American people still believe these related issues comprise the biggest problem the country faces, and should remain the main task of the government.
Eighty-two per cent still approve of the military action taken in response to September 11. That number has subsided slightly from 89% a month ago — but it’s still a margin of support nobody but a masochistic politician would counter.
It’s also true that the latest numbers show President Bush’s approval rating moderating somewhat. But it’s still 77%. Last October it was 80%. That’s not exactly a collapse. And it’s still historically unprecedented.
The reason for the Democrats’ shift is, in part, desperation. Over the past year they have watched helplessly as Bush has neutralised them on some key domestic issues, and soared ahead of them because of the war. Look at the poll results on what were, until recently, Democratic strong points: the economy, education and healthcare. The Democrats have long hoped that they could make gains in the upcoming congressional elections by ceding the war issue to Bush but taking him on domestically.
Now they’re beginning to believe that strategy won’t work. The economy is pulling out of a recession — and, in fact, may never have been in a recession in the first place. Numbers released last week showed the American economy growing by 1.4% in the fourth quarter of last year. On the same day, the Democrats put the emphasis back on the war.
Coincidence? I don’t think so. Last July some 55% of Americans said they were very or somewhat optimistic about the economy. Last week that number had risen to 66%. The opposition is rattled. Bush’s education bill, passed last year with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy, has also neutralised a key Democratic issue — and the parties are close to even on the matter. Only on pensions do the Democrats have a real lead, but it is outweighed by massive Republican margins on homeland security and defence policy. The polls also show Republicans as a party opening up a lead in congressional races for the first time in 15 years.
So the Democrats have realised that if they don’t dent Bush’s war leadership, they’re doomed. They also realise that the impact of Bush’s tax cut last year and increases in defence spending scheduled for the next four years mean there is almost nothing left for domestic spending — the Democrats’ main tool for pleasing voters and appeasing their special interest groups. They feel trapped. They tried, with the aid of the media, to pin the Enron scandal on Bush. It didn’t stick. So they’re trying something that can only be called desperate — and enormously risky.
The liberal intelligentsia is egging them on. The current issue of the liberal Washington Monthly bemoans the lack of aggression among Democrats. “The Bush team can attack Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, lose $4 trillion of the surplus, and meet with campaign contributors whose company stock they own, and Democrats just watch,” the magazine’s editor complains. “And then there’s Enron. Is there any doubt that if the situation were reversed, Republicans would be exploiting the scandal more aggressively? Would they have hesitated, as Democrats have, to frame Enron as a political scandal or to bombard the White House with subpoenas? Democrats can’t afford to go all wobbly, especially now.”
The left-liberal American Prospect’s editor argued in his latest issue: “The moment for bipartisan triumphalism and unquestioning support for a wartime commander in chief is over. Dissent should be back in fashion. Mainstream critics need to give voice to their private second thoughts, not just on Bush’s dismal domestic programme or his odd global geography but on his dubious notion of permanent war.”
Is this the Democratic theme for the foreseeable future? Some Republicans are praying it is. They believe that if they can reinforce the notion that the Democrats are soft on terrorism and soft on defence, then a small margin in the congressional races this summer and autumn could become a rout in their favour.
The house Republican whip, Tom DeLay, felt the need to issue only a one-word response to Daschle’s question on the conduct of the war: “Disgusting.” For what it’s worth, I think those Republicans are right. As long as the administration keeps its nerve, and as long as military competence continues, the Democrats could be handing Bush a political gift of massive proportions.
The autumn elections may well be held as military action in Iraq reaches a critical point. If that happens, the Democrats could risk not only losing the Senate and the house, but also they could undo many post-Vietnam years devoted to persuading middle America that the party could be trusted on foreign policy. If I were Tom Daschle, I’d be worried sick. Suicide isn’t pretty for a political party; but the Democratic leadership, for short-term political reasons — or for lack of any other viable strategy — is contemplating it once again.
sunday-times.co.uk |
