Canada has more to offer than just hockey, maple syrup, cheap lumber and cultural protectionism; we also have one of the most brilliant columnist in North America:
Thursday » October 3 » 2002
Bush suckered the Democrats
Mark Steyn
National Post
Thursday, September 19, 2002
People keep asking me how this November's U.S. elections will go. To be honest, I haven't a clue. So I consulted the experts.
From The New York Times of September 1st:
"Domestic Concerns Take Center Stage In Congress Races
By Adam Nagourney"
But, then again, from The New York Times of September 6th:
"With Focus Shifting To Iraq, Domestic Issues Fade
By Adam Nagourney"
On the one hand, as Adam Nagourney (September 1st model) argues, "The fight for control of Congress is revolving this Labor Day more around domestic than foreign concerns, with candidates battling over corporate abuses, prescription drug costs and Social Security rather than the threat of terrorism or the prospect of a war against Iraq. The emphasis on these domestic issues at what is traditionally the start of the general election season would seem to give an advantage to the Democratic Party ..."
On the other, as Adam Nagourney (September 6th model) counters, "Events abroad, rather than the domestic issues pushed by Democrats this summer, could dominate the nation's political discussion for easily half of the general election campaign this fall. Several Republicans said today that the focus on Iraq would serve the political needs of their party going into the close Congressional elections ..."
What happened between September 1st and 6th is that the Democratic Party woke up and realized it had been suckered. Ever since the Afghan campaign wound down the best part of a year ago, President Bush has been talking about "regime change" in Iraq. Or, to be more accurate, he's talked about how he has "no plans" for regime change in Iraq "on my desk." This may well be true. They could be on the sideboard, or in the filing cabinet, or stashed behind the coffee percolator. My own hunch is that they're rolled up in the umbrella stand. At first, in the absence of anything exciting on the war front, all those poll-tested focus-grouped Democratic issues -- prescription drug plans for seniors, mandatory federal bicycling-helmet regulations, whatever -- seemed likely to fill the gap, as the first Mr. Nagourney so persuasively argued.
But, instead, as Bush carried on insisting that his desk remained free of war plans, Democrats were unable to resist piling on and started huffing that he'd jolly well better not think about invading Iraq without getting Congressional approval and going to the UN and answering a number of "troubling questions" party bigwigs claimed to have about the whole business. By this time, the President had gone off to play golf, leaving Democratic Senators to hog the airwaves week in week out with their various "concerns" about the Administration's policy on Iraq. With Mr. Bush temperamentally disinclined to use the bully pulpit, the Dems seized the pulpit and started bullying him.
And then, round about Labour Day, they wised up: They'd spent so much time yakking about Saddam that all their issues had dropped off the front page.
Now as readers may recall, I wanted Bush to invade Iraq by September 11th, and I feel that since the spring he's squandered his opportunity and lost the momentum. Among those of us on the right, this is still a minority view. Take Andrew Sullivan, for example: "It seems clear to me in retrospect," he wrote the other day, "that Bush's summer strategy has been really, really smart." Bush's summer strategy was to take the summer off. If I follow the argument correctly, it's that, by doing so, he allowed the Dems to overplay their hand, as the wily old fox knew they would. It is not necessary to agree with this theory to appreciate nevertheless that, up against the current Democratic leadership, even Bush's lethargy is a potentially lethal weapon.
So now, instead of fighting Saddam, the Democrats want to fight over the calendar. It's not so much that they're opposed to the war as that they're opposed to talking about the war, at least before election day in November. Out on the hustings, Democratic candidates glide past the war question like the Queen passing one of those mooning Maoris: Keep smiling and pretend nothing's happening. In this, they have the considerable assistance of the press. The American Prospect gave Minnesota leftie Paul Wellstone the full Monica the other day in a drooling campaign profile broken up by sub-headings such as "The Draw Of Conscience." " 'I believe in Paul's conscience,' says Karen Jeffords, a mental-health worker." The Senator, in return, "pledges" his "commitment" to federal funds for light-rail transportation. Paul's conscience on the bitterly divisive light-rail issue seems to be in cracking form, but where does it stand on the war? Whoops, gotta run.
My guess is he's opposed to it, but his party would rather he didn't say. If Senator Conscience comes out against it, he's likely to lose to the Republicans. If he comes out in favour, enough of his "progressive" base will defect to the Greens to throw the seat to the Republicans anyway. Most Democratic Senators voted against the last Gulf War. A majority would like to vote against this one, but not in the middle of election season. So now the party's frantically backpedaling: Good heavens, we know we said you needed to come to us for Congressional approval, but what's the hurry? How about if we leave it till December or the New Year? The new line is that, by bringing it to the legislature as Democrats demanded, Bush is now "politicizing" the war.
"The concerns we have about the politicization of this whole issue are ones that still exist," frets Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader and putative Democratic Presidential candidate. His colleague Joe Biden is equally concerned. "Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States, that they should be taken as far out of the realm of politics as possible," he intones portentously. "This is one of those issues."
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be howling with laughter. Usually, when they call for something to be "taken out of politics," they're demanding that the Democrat line on, say, abortion or racial quotas be accepted as one of life's eternal verities and the very subject retired from political contention. But in this instance what Biden means is that the Democrats should not be forced to take a line at all: The President should protect them from the political consequences of having to reveal their views. "Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States that they can't be discussed in the national legislature, mainly because they might reveal the yawning chasm between me and the American people. The eve of an election campaign is no time to start forcing politicians to making our beliefs on major issues known to voters. An election ought to be about light-rail subsidies and which Senate candidate has the more stylish toupée."
The Democrat line on Iraq boils down to "We urgently need a debate but not for the next few months." The longer you stick to that, the more obvious it is what you really believe. And, even taken at face value, it's preposterous: If Democrats really have no views on the defence of the Republic, why exactly are they running for national office anyway?
But Dems don't need to be smart, just lucky. If Bush is planning to be at war by November 5th, the GOP could do surprisingly well. But, if we have another two months of unending drumbeat but no actual fighting, who's to say a bored public won't drift back to Democrat issues? November 2002 still seems most likely to preserve the perfect 50/50 split in the American electorate.
That's why the laughable cowardice of the Democrat position makes Bush's inertia, faintheartedness or (as Helprin sees it) "irresoluteness" all the more frustrating. The party is vulnerable in this new world: If Bush were to use the bully pulpit, he could change the dynamics of American politics. Instead, over these last six months, he's allowed the culture to slip back into its default mode -- which is to say fuzzily Democratic. The Dems may not benefit from that this November, but, if Bush doesn't get serious about this war, time is on their side.
© Copyright 2002 National Post |
