Is it No Longer 1968? Posted by Michael Cohen

In May 2004, I was riding the New York City subway when I picked up the Wall Street Journal and read and article about the presidential contest between Bush and Kerry and how the issue of Iraq would play in November. The piece quoted a senior administration official (likely Karl Rove) who commented on Kerry's dilemma in talking about Iraq by noting that "It's never stopped being 1968" for Democrats. It's a comment that speaks volumes about Democratic vulnerability on national security and the effectiveness of GOP attacks on the perception of Democratic weakness. For the past 40 years, the image of scruffy anti-war demonstrators (dirty hippies as some in the liberal blogosphere like to call it) has been a useful political tool for Republicans. At the same time, Democrats have fitfully tried to neutralize this political image with often poor results (think Dukakis in the tank or Kerry's lame salute before his DNC acceptance speech in 2004).

But, one of the striking elements from the Saturday debate in NH is the extent to which Democrats seem to be far less self-conscious about the perception of the party on national security. In one of the initial questions in the debate, the Democratic candidates were asked about the supposed success of the military surge in Iraq. None of them took the bait. They all cogently noted (as many of us have done here at Democracy Arsenal) that the initial surge was predicated on political reconciliation and that, of course, simply hasn't happened. Indeed, nearly all the candidates made the somewhat nuanced argument that the recent military success should provide even more impetus to bring the troops home because it will be the only effective lever for getting the Maliki government to move forward with political reform. Certainly, this is more complex take on the situation in Iraq then what I heard from John McCain who claimed Democrats are advocating a "surrender date" and criticized Time Magazine for not making David Petraeus Man of the Year. Indeed, the Democrats all staked out fairly solid middle of the road arguments refusing, neither kowtowing to the media fixation on "success" on Iraq nor playing to the anti-war elements in the party. The lack of posturing on foreign policy and national security was striking and frankly, quite refreshing.

Now I recognize that this was a Democratic debate, but one can't help but get the sense that each of the candidates sees the Iraq war as a political winner for Democrats - and with the GOP candidates all locked in to a reflexive support for the Bush policy it's not hard to disagree. Clearly Iraq was a boon to the party in 2006, but congressional elections are quite different then voting for commander in chief.

Come election time one can expect GOP "cut and run" attacks on Democrats to escalate but this might be the first election in my lifetime (and probably since 1960 or 1964) in which national security is a net plus for Democrats. If Democrats can go into 2008 with the confidence to talk about foreign policy and national security without being afraid of GOP counterattacks we might truly be on the verge of a real political realignment in this country.

Comments

[Daniel Ruwe]

I think Iraq will hurt Democrats. The surge seems to be working, and Americans don't like to lose wars.

[Bob Narus]

I doubt the Iraq War will be helpful to any Democrat who can be accused of flip-flopping on it.

[Zathras]

At this point Iraq would be a net minus for Democrats if it didn't blow up again, and a big plus if it did. So they are basically in the position now, from a political standpoint, of hoping for bad news.

That's not ideal, though the Republicans' position -- hoping that we stay lucky and nothing major goes wrong -- is worse. The Democrats would be in a stronger position if they didn't appear to want to blame the American government for everything bad that happens in Iraq; if they dwelt on the war's cost to us rather than the prospects for political reconciliation among Iraqis; and if they raised now and then the grotesque distortion of priorities represented by all the resources we are pouring into the sand in an effort to keep Arabs from killing one another.

[Dan Kervick]

I think the war is going to end up being a net plus for the Democrats, because as the economy goes further into the tank, the huge opportunity cost of the war will become more of an issue. A trillion plus dollars is going to seem more and more obscene.

[Howl]

Democrats would do well to be more wary of the war as a political issue. The trap is in thinking that no matter what happens, the war is so unpopular that it's a surefire slam-dunk issue for the election, and it's not.

The fact that the surge has so dramatically reduced violence is a powerful one. Yes, we know that without political reconciliation all is for nought; yes, we know that the surge is, ultimately, temporary and everything could easily reignite. But all it takes is for the Republican nominee to stand up and say, 'Look, America. The Democrats said we should cut and run, and instead, we reinvested more troops in the surge... and violence has plummeted. You can't argue with results,' and a large portion of the voting populace is going to say, 'Yup, looks like we've finally figured it out.' And then all of the gains in legitimacy the Democrats have made in national security are going to disappear.

Even worse is the possibility that, as Zathras pointed out, the meme goes out that the Democratic candidate is hoping for the failure of our troops for political gain. Try spinning /that/ one in the national media, once the accusation hits the airwaves.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[pandora bracelet]

i like it!