This concept is a slippery one, so perhaps it’s worth examining its various possible meanings. The most obvious way to gain political advantage from a successful war is timing it to coincide with elections. I don’t see how the Bush administration can be plausibly said to have done this. The most obvious reason for the timing of this war has been the need to replenish materiel after Afghanistan and to go through the diplomatic motions to legitimize the enforcement of U.N. resolutions against Saddam. Even so, there will be no war until after the elections, and until the military conditions for victory are about as perfect as they can be. The second meaning, I suppose, is that the administration has shifted the public debate to Iraq in the run-up to elections. But here too, I think, it’s a bum rap. Andy Card’s crass remark that the war was a “new product” timed for a new season is the single best evidence of this. But it’s also clear, isn’t it, that some kind of pre-election debate on continuing the war on terror was inevitable, and the Democrats and anti-war liberals were among the first demanding that such a debate take place. I think they’re right. But they can’t have it both ways. Here’s a paragraph from today’s Washington Post:
More than a dozen Democrats, who requested anonymity, have told The Washington Post that many members who oppose the president’s strategy to confront Iraq are going to nonetheless support it because they fear a backlash from voters. A top party strategist said every House Democrat who faces a tough reelection this fall plans to vote for the Bush resolution. Senate Democrats are so concerned that Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (Minn.) could lose his seat because he will likely vote against the Bush resolution that they are drafting an alternative resolution “because he has to have something to give him cover,” a Democratic Senate aide said.
And these are the people accusing president Bush of putting politics before national security!
DASCHLE’S COMPLAINT: But what about Tom Daschle’s specific complaint? What Daschle had a herd of cows about is the following statement by Bush:
The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure.
What the president is talking about is whether the new homeland defense bureaucracy will be unionized. He’s clearly trying to pressure the Democrats to change their position, which would limit the ability of the new security organization to fire incompetent workers if need be. The Dems are prepared to hold up the legislation until the unions are satisfied. I think it’s unfair to infer from that that the Dems are “not interested” in security, which is where Daschle has a point, and the president went over the line. But I don’t think this extends to the notion that the president is politicizing the war as such. If the Dems take positions that the president believes are impeding national security in wartime, he has a duty to say so. That’s not politicization. It’s politics. In fact, it’s slightly creepy to believe that debating questions of war policy – how to attack Iraq, how to handle post-Taliban Afghanistan, how to set up domestic security, and so on – should somehow be sealed off in a lock-box of non-partisanship.
THE REAL ISSUE: No, the deeper issue that Daschle is responding to, methinks, is Gore’s speech. What Gore has done is galvanize the peacenik wing of the Democrats, undermining Daschle’s leadership, and pushing Daschle into a corner. If Daschle now goes along with the president, he’ll be called a poodle by the left. If he balks, he risks the Democrats becoming associated once again in the public mind with vacillation in matters of national defense. He’s trapped, and when pushed by Bush and Gore at the same time, he exploded. I think he also realizes that his entire strategy to keep the Senate and win back the House is in trouble. He decided early on me-too-ism, so as to return the debate to less troublesome matters like free pills for seniors. But this didn’t work, as the war debate kept going and going despite his best efforts. What the Republicans are dreaming of is a November election between peacenik Dems and warrior Republicans. In the run-up, Bush talks about national security, while the Democrats whine about politicizing the war. Bush talks about international substance; the Dems talk about domestic process. On those grounds, the GOP wins in November. Daschle, it seems to me, has just increased the odds of that happening.
THE GREENSPAN-BLAIR ALLIANCE: In London, Alan Greenspan implied he was against Britain joining the euro. And there was another revealing tidbit about his relationship with Gordon Brown, Britain’s chancellor:
It was unknown how close Mr Brown and his staff are to Mr Greenspan. Yesterday, Mr Brown described him as “a good friend” and “a great American, America’s greatest central banker, not just of our generation but of all time, and one of the world’s most esteemed statesmen”. He said Mr Greenspan had secretly helped him plan to make the Bank of England independent. Before the 1997 election, Mr Brown and his economic adviser, Ed Balls, visited Mr Greenspan several times.
Did Clinton know, I wonder?
NICOTINE VERSUS ALZHEIMERS: Hey guys, get smoking! You’ll die quicker – and with better brain functioning.
PURITANISM COMES HOME: The war against smokers comes to Boston.
NOW, CANADA: What timing the Dems have. As soon as they start looking as if they’re anti-war, even the Canadians come on board.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I should take up smoking … because every time I finish having sex, I have to read your weblog.” Glad to oblige, bro.
THE OLD CHESTNUT: “Finally, there’s that old chestnut “our values must be spread solely by suasion.” Not. The greatest instrument for the spread of democracy in the 20th century was the American Army, and in the Middle East today the spread of democracy is intimately linked to the success of the war. It is almost as if belief in Western values depends on the success of Western arms. Does that sound familiar? It’s a variation of the “God is on our side” doctrine. The outcome of struggle shows which side God is on. Maybe we modern acculturated intellectuals don’t believe it, but the peoples of the Middle East – if you must, call it “the street” – mostly do believe it. And so if you want to spread our values, you’ve gotta win the war.” – Michael Ledeen, responding to your criticisms on the Book Club page today. More emails will be posted this afternoon.
The Dish 