THE IRANIAN THREAT IN THE 2006 ELECTIONS
maxspeak.org
The latest news about Iran should be very scary to anyone old enough to remember the 2002 elections. Those who lived in that distant time will remember a president slumping in the polls in the wake of a sinking economy and an accounting scandal that centered on his Texas buddies at Enron. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, President Bush’s team began raising the warning about Saddam Hussein and his WMDs. The Democratic leadership, showing the combination of courage and foresight that has made them legendary, supported Bush’s drive to war. The argument was that if they just voted for the war resolution, they could then turn public debate to domestic issues. Three and a half years later, we’re still waiting.
Since Republicans seem much better than Democrats at recognizing a winning strategy, the roadmap seems pretty straightforward. There will be more bellicose threats from Bush, which will no doubt produce equally bellicose responses from Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush will get the Security Council to pass a resolution authorizing force, or alternatively will announce to the world that the United States does not need a “permission slip” to attack its enemies. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership will be cowering in the corner, worried that someone will call them “unpatriotic” if they criticize Bush. (Or they may propose new laws against flag burning.)
Since the public sees the Republicans willing to stand up for U.S. national security, while the Democrats are not clearly standing for anything, chalk up another victory for the Republicans in November (that’s 4 to 0 in the new millennium). The moral of the story is that the Republicans have a winning strategy as long as Democrats follow the same script. They have no intention of abandoning the “national security” crisis approach if the Democrats will never stand up and tell the truth. Reruns are boring on TV, they are painful in politics.
Posted by Dean Baker |
