In his latest Newsweek column, Jonathan Alter suggests Dems are struggling in the political debate over war policy, in part because they’re not nearly as good as Republicans at coming up with bumper-sticker slogans.
Iraq is President Bush’s war, but the Democrats are quickly getting tagged with some blame for it. One of the reasons Congress is in such bad odor — less popular even than Bush in recent polls — is that Democrats look feckless on how to proceed in Iraq, and not just because they lack the votes to cut off funding. Are they neo-isolationists, determined to exit the region as soon as possible? Democrats like Pennsylvania freshman Rep. Patrick Murphy, who saw ground action as an Army captain, insist not. They want to get out of Iraq and get tough on Al Qaeda at the same time. But the idea isn’t getting through.
Last week’s attack on what remained of the Golden Mosque in Samarra — one of the most revered shrines of Iraq’s Shiites — was apparently another sign that the organization known as Al Qaeda in Iraq remains a serious threat. The bombing (along with the violence in Gaza) was also a reminder that Democrats could still be in trouble on national security in 2008.
Politically, the “war on terror” continues to be a useful GOP bumper sticker, whatever John Edwards’s objections. Instead of bemoaning this, Democrats need their own bumper sticker — some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn’t make them look like surrender monkeys. Without it, they have no coherent policy.
To help Dems along, Alter suggests “strategic redeployment” isn’t muscular enough when it comes to sloganeering, and recommends “pull and strike” — the U.S. policy would “pull” American troops from the streets of Baghdad, but “strike” at terrorist targets in the region.
I suppose that’s as good a catchphrase as any, but I think Alter’s broader argument is off-base. He argues that Democrats have the right policy, but it’s not “getting through” to the rest of the country. I disagree — they have the right policy, it’s getting through just fine, but Dems are coming up short when it comes to executing their strategy.
I wish it were just a matter of coming up with a new slogan or bumper-sticker catchphrase. But what happened in recent months? Dems tried to use the power of the purse to change the war policy, Bush pushed back in defense of the status quo, and congressional Republicans, predictably, did as the president commanded. All the while, Americans expressed their support for the Democratic policy.
Indeed, Alter suggests what’s standing between Democrats and broader acceptance of their policy prescription is “some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn’t make them look like surrender monkeys.” Alter’s heart is in the right place, but he’s missing a key point here — the public has already accepted the Democratic war policy. Dems’ poll numbers started to sag only after they gave in and gave the Bush White House the war funding bill the president demanded.
I don’t mean to pick on Alter; he’s on the right track when it comes to the need for a dramatic change in policy. But I think he’s fallen into the same belief that tends to dominate the DC conventional wisdom — that the Dems have fallen short in convincing Americans that it’s time to withdraw from Iraq. That’s just not so; Americans already want out and are waiting for Washington to catch up.