The GOP’s rhetorical strategy on Iraq

June 15, 2006

The LA Times ran a front-page item today explaining the Republicans’ new strategy when it comes to the politics of Iraq: talk about how they consistently see the war differently than most of the public.

The [tag]Iraq[/tag] [tag]war[/tag] is the most immediate foreign policy problem besetting the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]administration[/tag]. But as a political issue, the White House and top Republican strategists have concluded that the war is a clear winner.

GOP officials intend to base the midterm election campaign partly on talking up the war, using speeches and events to contrast [tag]President[/tag] Bush’s policies against growing disagreement among leading Democrats over whether to support immediate withdrawal of U.S. [tag]troops[/tag]. […]

Ed Gillespie, a former [tag]Republican[/tag] National Committee chairman and a key White House advisor, conceded Wednesday that protracted violence in Iraq and voters’ rising doubts “have had a dampening effect on the president’s approval rating.” But, he said, given a choice between [tag]Democrats[/tag]’ uncertainty and Bush’s firmness, “that choice favors us.”

All of this seems like a flawed strategy. As the theory goes, Republicans realize that the war in unpopular, but they believe the electorate will be impressed by the party’s “steadiness and clarity.” In other words, voters are supposed to conclude, “The [tag]GOP[/tag] has been wrong about this disastrous war from the start, but I’m impressed by the consistency and resoluteness with which they’ve been wrong.”

I’m not sure which strategist was paid big bucks to come up with this brilliant plan, but the party might consider asking for a refund.

Consider the results of the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News [tag]poll[/tag] (.pdf), which was released last night. The poll was conducted after Zarqawi was killed, so it should reflect the public’s new-found sense of optimism, if such a sentiment exists.

Asked if “removing Saddam Hussein from power was or was not worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost,” 52% said it was not. It’s tied for the highest number to date in a WSJ/NBC poll. Majorities also said the invasion was the “wrong decision” (53%) and that they are less confident that the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion (53%). Asked about the impact of Zarqawi’s death, a plurality said they believe it will have “no effect” on the war. And yet, despite all of this, the GOP has come to the conclusion that they need to tell voters how much they disagree.

Ultimately, the Republicans have two choices: embrace a different policy (which Bush refuses to do), or try the don’t-believe-your-lying-eyes strategy with the public. Left with little choice, the party is going with the latter. We’ll see how that works out for them.

they’re gonna go with it, and it is gonna work for them. i’ll put money on it. i’d ask how sad that is, but pathetic may be a better word.

  • Napoleon said the French revolution of 1789 need never have happened if the old regeme had enough understanding to control the press (media). In case you haven’t noticed, the republicans have a stranglehold on all media.
    In speech, I learned the art of using logic with pathos(emotions) to win an arguement. The republicans have it down. Logic, we have a war. Why, Fear, Fear and more fear. It seems to work.
    The republic is dead. Unless we get rid of the voting machines, those people will stay in power.

  • It”s not the world’s worst strategy. The Karl Rove strategy (and even if Rove had been indicted, the GOP would still be using Rove/Delay methods) is always to try and turn your negatives into positives, usually by bashing the other side. The point of this sham debate is that, well, you don’t like the war, but at least we GOP-ers are resolute and want to stay the course, while the Democrats are divided and some of them want to abandon Iraq to the terra-wrists. Hence the resolution equating the Iraq war with the “war on terra.”

    If there’s a flaw in the strategy it’s that most of the vulnerable GOP incumbents are the so-called “moderates” who live in areas where the war is really, really unpopular. I don’t know if Christopher Shays, say, will be helped by voting for a resolution that essentially advocates staying in Iraq forever.

  • I couldn’t agree with you more CB. The choice should be framed as between an honest and rational analysis of how to extract ourselves from this unmitigated disaster or continue with Bush’s “strategy” of brute force and ignorance. I posted the following question on the Washington Post’s political chat earlier today:

    “Mr. Fletcher,

    Tom Reynolds, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, explained on one of the talking head shows this past Sunday that the GOP’s strategy is to run on local issues in this fall’s congressional campaigns. He must have used the word “local” a dozen times. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a Maryland GOP House member, is quoted in today’s Post as saying “To me, the administration does not act like there’s a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn’t act like there’s a war going on. If you’re raising money to keep the majority, if you’re thinking about gay marriage, if you’re doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who’s about ready to drive over a land mine?”

    This is an interesting dichotomy. Given that the Iraq war, in my opinion, is very much a local issue in every congressional district in the country–because our family members, friends, and neighbors are being killed and wounded, and because the staggering amount of money being spent to secure Iraq is not available for improving the lives of local constituents–do you think that Mr. Reynolds’ strategy will work?”

    We’ll see if he answers it. I think the Democrats would do well to pound the message home that the Iraq War is a local issue for everyone in the United States

  • Whoops, Fletcher covers the White House, so I doubt he will. But I intend to submit this question again to the reporters who cover Congress just to get this idea out there.

  • Well, it will work with the Republicans Uber Alles crowd…This reminds me of the poster I saw in 2004: Think independently..Vore Republican (does this mean you should only think independently, but act like a robot?)

  • I think Rove clued us into their strategy on this in his speach earlier this week in New Hampshire. They are going to define the Democrats “plan” if, god forbid, they take the house and/or senate as “cut and run.” We will hear this over and over on the talking head shows, the evening news, and see it in the news papers. cut and run, cut and run, cut and run. The voters will then see Democrates as cowards who quit when the going gets tough.

  • Keep the Iraq War local and keep reminding people that The War on Terror does not equate to the War in Iraq. Thus, building upon the 53% who now know it was a mistake from the git-go.

  • What about a democratic position to truly protect the “homeland” such as more inspections of imports, protecting our chemical plants, and other such places that we heard about in late ’01 and ’02? Whatever happened to these issues? Seems like Dems could take advantage of so many Republican gaffes.

    I am completely baffled by our administration. They say we are at war, but they don’t act like it. There is no sacrifice.

    Republicans cut military spending, cut taxes, all the while barking about the war on terror. Who are the people who cut and run???

  • Now that Rove is off the legal mat (or, at least, thinks he is), we’ll see a lot more of the framing, parsing, and slogan-repeating that Rove is so notorious for (and which has been largely missing for the first six months of this year). I agree with New Yorker and Mike: Full speed ahead.

    Rove’s job is to make Down into Up, and he’s done it many times before. He knows that while a majority of Americans are “against” the war, many of them would actually like to like the war, if they were given a compelling reason to do so: at the very least, something to justify all the deaths. I’m sure he’ll come up with something.

  • Ultimately, the Republicans have two choices: embrace a different policy (which Bush refuses to do), or try the don’t-believe-your-lying-eyes strategy with the public. Left with little choice, the party is going with the latter. We’ll see how that works out for them.

    It could work out well as long as the Democrats don’t coalesce around a single policy. A single straight-forward, no nuance, no apology policy. As long as we have 200 Democrats with 200 slightly different proscriptions for IIraq, the GOP approach will resonate with the broader electorate.

  • “Don’t-believe-your-lying-eyes” has worked for the Republicans for 6 years. Why should this year be any different?

    There are literally MILLIONS of people, most of whom vote avidly, who believe whatever the GOP tells them to believe.

    The Repubicans are a lot of things but stupid isn’t one of them.

  • Focusing on the war won’t work for the Repubs if their arguement is turned on its ear. The Dems should argue that staying in Iraq would be a wise decision IF we had competent civilian leadership. But since we have civilian idiots in control of our armed forces, all we’re doing is setting up our soldiers in a shooting gallery for training smarter terrorists. Katrina, Iraq — it’s all the same quagmire. Having stupid people make stupid decisions and then waste billions of dollars on graft and corruption is no way to solve a problem.

  • Let them focus on the war. Let’s just point out how badly they have been running it and how incompetent they are. After all, the GOP controls the Executive, the Legislative, and a large chunk of the Judiciary.

    Iraq is their mess. They own it. Let’s scream it from the rooftops.

  • Unfortunately, I think this is a strategy that could work. The sad fact is that, given a choice between an unpopular policy that is sold as something that “could work if we just have more patience” and an inconsistent and contradictory policy that never really explains how it would be better, the people will choose the unpopular one.

    The problem is that there really is no good solution to the Iraq problem. The Democrats cannot be blamed for not coming up with a consistent answer to the Iraq question because the question defies such a response.

    Which is why I think the best way to defeat the Republicans on this is to drive wedges within their coalition. Don’t allow them to put out the “happy talk” without being challenged over and over and over again. If the Democrats attempt to go head-to-head with the Republicans on a good solution to the Iraq problem I predict they will lose.

    • Comments are closed.