Political Realities
'Security first' lapses
By Donald Lambro
The Democrats' biggest challenge in 2004: Convince independent and swing voters that their party can protect the United States.
That's going to be a hard, if not impossible, sell.
Polls show that Americans, by margins of 40 percent or more, trust President Bush and Republicans more than the Democrats to keep our nation safe from terrorism and other security threats. Yet the message coming from Democrats (including most of the party's presidential candidates) is one of weakness, timidity and ambivalence on the most politically pivotal issue of our times.
Intense criticism is being heard lately from Democratic strategists and a few leaders — all of whom complain that the party's opposition to the war in Iraq and continuous attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war on terrorism is hurting Democrats. The gist of their ominous warning: If Democrats can't show that they're tougher than Mr. Bush on national security, the party faces the impossible in 2004.
With the nation on high alert as U.S. intelligence warnings about an al Qaeda terrorist strike increase, the security issue is even more critical for the Democrats — so much so that it has become a contentious debate within their party.
Consider these charges by top Democrats in just the past few weeks:
c "How can we win this election if we send a message of weakness on defense and security after September 11, 2001, to the American people?" Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut lectured his fellow presidential candidates at a debate in Columbia, S.C., earlier this month.
c "The American people agree with us on many vital issues — but they believe that we Democrats are weak and indecisive when it comes to standing up to dictators and terrorists, and when it comes to the primary responsibility of government: defending the nation," Democratic strategists Donna Brazile and Timothy Bergreen wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal.
No matter "how compelling our positions" on other issues, "if voters continue to see us as feckless and effete [on national security] they will not listen to our message next year and they will re-elect Mr. Bush," they wrote.
c In a memo to party leaders, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council blasted the liberal wing of the party, which, they said, was "defined principally by weakness abroad." If Democrats do not project a posture of strength and resolve on defending the country, they risk losing the trust and support of the voters, the DLC warned.
The Democrats once stood for a strong defense and made it one of the principal pillars in their party's agenda.
In 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for building "the best-trained and equipped army in the world, the most powerful navy in the world, the greatest air force in the world."
John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign platform "put national security first, and went on for 19 sections before even getting around to the domestic agenda," the DLC noted. Kennedy ran on building a stronger defense posture.
Then came the Vietnam War and an orgy of Democratic opposition to a stronger defense and a muscular offensive against the "Evil Empire" (the Soviet Union). Ronald Reagan reversed course, but Democratic leaders fought him every step of the way, especially his vision of an anti-missile defense system.
By the time the 2000 election rolled around, polls showed Mr. Bush with a 3-to-1 lead over Al Gore on defense issues.
"Democrats have yet to fully comprehend the new reality of the post-September 11 world," say Ms. Brazile and Mr. Bergreen. "Many prominent Democrats still seem not to grasp the profound sense of insecurity that so many people feel in our country."
National polls taken by USA Today and others during the 2002 elections showed that this unease was particularly strong among women, many of whom voted Republican as a result, in spite of a lackluster economy.
During the upcoming election, it could get much worse for Democrats: Most of their presidential contenders have weak positions on national defense. For example, comments made by anti-war candidate Howard Dean suggested that he was unsure whether Iraq was better off without Saddam Hussein. He later backtracked on this issue.
Sen. John Kerry is trying to sound tough on defense lately, but he has a long record of voting with the doves for disarmament and criticizing the anti-missile system that Mr. Bush is backing. He voted for funding after the terrorist attacks but, with few exceptions, his votes on defense issues — as I have previously cited — have been nearly identical to Sen. Ted Kennedy's.
Most worrisome, Mr. Kerry compiled a near-perfect lifetime liberal score of 93 percent on defense votes from the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action, and equally high grades from other dovish, anti-military groups.
In their Columbia debate, Mr. Lieberman accused Mr. Kerry of sending out a message of "ambivalence about the war which does not — will not give the people confidence about our party's willingness to make the tough decisions to protect their security in a world after September 11."
Mr. Kerry denied Mr. Lieberman's charge. But what cannot be denied is that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Democrats to protect them in an increasingly dangerous world, and that weakness trumps all other issues.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
This is the sort on inside baseball analysis that is so smart it becomes dumb.
1. Most voters pay almost zero attention to all the detail of nuanced party, office holder or candidate positions on issues. We are a profoundly anti-intellectual nation that really isn’t all that interested in public affairs. Our media coverage is so focused on the horse race aspect, the scandal / hot button issue of the momement [delivered in a shrill tone and without context – all Iraq all the time being dumped within a day or two by all Laci Peterson all the time], he said she said mud slinging and inside baseball trivia that only the players [and politics junkies like me] pay any attention to. The trend to infotainment whereby the ratings matter more than the content just adds fuel to the fire.
2. What the voters have is a set of feelings about parties and candidates. The Democrats chased out of their party the old sort of blue-collar patriots who could be liberal and tough. They are the party of sign wavers at rallies and social workers. This may not be fair. However, it is not a vibe that can be overcome with two good ads or clever tactics. Clinton won twice and Gore finished in a dead heat in the only three elections since 1936 where foreign affairs / national security policy did not trump most domestic issues. There is no sign that this issue will go away any time soon.
3. You beat the party image with a personal one. The Democrats need someone who can campaign in uniform with major medals on his chest. In the old days of the bosses they would have recruited such to regain the House. While the professional officer corps leans Republican, it is not all Republican. Besides a Ranger Sergeant will do. Enter the primaries. Such a ‘man not the party’ candidate does not survive the primary process.
4. The mistake the Democrats made in 2002 was not that they ran ‘me too’ on national security. Such a ‘me too’ on economics was the only way to elect Republicans before Reagan [too many people simply felt that on the economy all Republicans were Herbert Hoover – Goldwater proved what happened when you ran on the economic ideas of the GOP base; you lost in a national landslide – it took the Democrats Long March to the left in the 70’s on defense / national security, race / crime / welfare, and culture to move enough lunch-pail Democrats to ignore Hoover and vote for Reagan because on a variety of the three issues I just named they were outraged enough to ignore their feeling that the GOP was the party of country club WASPS – it took into the 90’s for enough of these people to feel comfortable voting Republican further down the ticket which is why the 1980-88 GOP Presidential lock never could bring the House or a majority of the state legislatures with it]. A Democrat can win running ‘me too’ on defense and blasting the Republicans on economics. However, we now get to problem #2 – the Democrats don’t have an economic program either. They can blast the Bush results. Forget whether it is fair or not – the economy tanked on his watch. They can label the tax cut as a giveaway to the rich and get enough people to buy that. OK, now beyond that what will they do. Restore growth? Yeah – bring back the late 90’s sounds wonderful. Problem is that the Democrats cannot agree on a coherent roadmap. Voters don’t buy pie in the sky easily. The Democrats never met a spending program or proposal for a new one they didn’t like. Every itty bitty program has its constituency among the Democratic faithful, in part because the Democrats are the party of the the government workers unions, especially the teachers. So the Republicans can go with a simple list – cut taxes, less government regulation, a rising tide lifts all boats. It may be bullshit but it IS simple. The Democrats come out with a laundry list that lasts longer than the 10-15 second sound bite the evening news allots to a talking head. They then squabble about abstruse detail on each subitem on the list on the Sunday morning talking head shows. This leaves them in the position of Republicans before Reagan - they know what they oppose but disagree so much among themselves on what they would change that they cannot come up with a tight enough message of what they would do differently to get past media coverage, voter mistrust of the process and voter apathy. This is a bigger killer for them than just being weak on defense. It is the biggest need the Democrats face – if they are against trickle down tax cuts and welfare for the Fortune 500, what do they stand for in fifty words or less. Imagine Al Gore saying anything in fifty words or less…LOL.
posted by scott 4:54 AM