TOPICS
TOPICS
Awkward Assignment
Democrats and Republicans alike will be feeling their way through the next month or two, trying to adjust to this New World Order. Back in control on both sides of the Capitol, Democrats must relearn how to govern -- and not just throw rocks, the primary occupation of the minority.
In their new minority role, Hill Republicans won't have to shoulder any responsibility: They can just throw rocks. And the circumstances of their losses underscore that. Although congressional scandals and the behavior of the Republican majorities certainly contributed to the GOP's loss of power, the war in Iraq was a much larger factor.
More than a few Republicans in Congress think that if President Bush had fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier, they would still be in charge. It doesn't matter whether that assessment is accurate. Believing it makes a significant number of Republican lawmakers less willing to do Bush's bidding, particularly on tough votes.
The Democratic majorities must walk a tightrope. Their base expects decisive action, yet the party must be mindful of those voters who swung to their column in November and put Democrats in control. A not inconsequential number of House Democrats represent districts that have tended to vote Republican in presidential and congressional elections. Although voters in those districts may have been displeased with GOP rule of late, they haven't suddenly become liberals.
If Bush calls for a significant increase in the number of American troops in Iraq, he'll find himself standing on exceedingly thin ice. A December 8-11 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey of 1,006 adults showed that just 23 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq; 71 percent disapproved.
Pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff also found that 35 percent of the public favored an immediate, phased withdrawal of U.S. troops; 44 percent supported the use of American troops only to train and support Iraqi forces; and just 16 percent supported the continued use of American troops in all aspects of the war.
A Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll conducted December 14-17 asked 775 registered voters which of four Iraq options was closest to their view. The first was that the United States should "send more troops in now and finish the job." The second, "Keep the number of troops the same but find a new strategy to finish the job." Third, "Begin to wind down U.S. involvement and hand the job over to the government in Iraq." Fourth, "Set a timetable to get most U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008."
The option to "send in more troops," the one that Bush seems most likely to embrace, was supported by 21 percent of all voters (39 percent of Republicans, 18 percent of independents, and 9 percent of Democrats). "Keep the numbers the same but find a new strategy" received the backing of 13 percent (17 percent of Republicans, 15 percent of independents, and 7 percent of Democrats), bringing the total for either increasing troop levels or holding them steady to 34 percent (56 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of independents, and 16 percent of Democrats).
The third choice, to wind down, was by far the most popular -- drawing 36 percent support (25 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of independents, and 43 percent of Democrats). "Set a timetable" was the choice of 24 percent (14 percent of Republicans, 21 percent of independents, and 30 percent of Democrats).
Obviously, the situation is bad for Bush. But it is also awkward for Democrats. Voters expressed displeasure with the war, yet haven't amended the Constitution. The president remains commander-in-chief.
Congressional Democrats and party strategists generally agree among themselves that they should avoid anything that smacks of being unsupportive of U.S. troops, such as cutting off funding for the war. An alternative approach would be to pass legislation putting a ceiling on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, eliminating Bush's surge option. The White House would inevitably get the Pentagon brass to defend the surge strategy, and Democrats are loath to take on the military.
So Democrats must find some way to be responsive to voters while not taking ownership of Bush's war. That's no easy assignment.
COMMENTS
- I would attest that today reservists earn their pay and their wings, but it wasn’t always that way. I agree that flying a fighter jet, even in the reserves can be fairly dangerous; although if it it’s all that dangerous perhaps the flight maintenance chief should be fired. I also feel that during certain eras in our history, the air reserves served primarily as the training grounds for the commercial airlines, through no fault of their own. I admit to having a problem with individuals who’ve never faced true adversity sending our soldiers off to die. I have a problem with silver-spooned conflict avoiders changing the rules after achieving positions of power. That was one of the few difficulties I had with Clinton, who got us into more varied conflicts than just about any previous president; and then there’s Dubya. I can’t give all that much in way of kudos to either, and dare not mention my feelings on the anti-militaristic attitude of the opposition’s current forerunner. But then I think of him whom many thought to be the American King. FDR was a phenomenal president, by all standards and measures, and yet couldn’t have served if he even wanted to. Remembering him, knowing my wife as well as I do, and many others like them I realize that we all have contributions we can make, regardless of our physical capabilities. I know it to be an unpopular sentiment but I still feel that there should be an active federal service requirement for all; at the very least for those who seek to serve the public in any elected capacity. Yes, I’m convinced that two years military conscription or three years in a TVA-like organization would do wonders for many of today’s youth and leadership. My military background leads me to question even industry leaders, managers hired for untold millions who are directing industry; without a clue as to what it takes to accomplish their mission. I hold high those who’ve risen from the ranks, know their jobs from the ground up and are willing to roll up their sleeves when necessary. Thus having unburdened myself, I wish the new regime the best of luck in moving us out of a nasty situation. They’re going to need it, especially with so few truly knowing about that on which they moralize to such an extent. Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted February 13, 2007 7:49 AM
- I would suggest that flying a fighter jet (which some compare to strapping on a bomb, with all that jet fuel, bombs, etc.), even in the reserves, is much more dangerous than going to a rear area in Vietnam and writing articles as an Army journalist! How many active duty military personnel, and reservists, are killed every year in training (or operational) accidents, even in peacetime, while flying highly sophisticated and high performance, aircraft? Besides, when needed, the reserves are called up to fight. Many have done so before, and many are currently doing so. So enough already with that same old draft-dodging accusation. There are many ways to serve your country! In any event, although we rightfully honor our vets, it doesn't mean that the rest of the American public has no right to speak out on this topic, or any other. That's what democracy is all about. With over 300 million Americans now, and perhaps 15 million living vets, how can anyone say that only vets can speak out on, or determine, American foreign and military policy? We elect our leaders, and the military reports to civilians in the Defense Dept. all the way up to the President. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, whether they have served or not. The only deciding factor should be what is in the best national interest of the United States! GovExec.com reader Posted January 25, 2007 2:52 PM
- Vet: Just because you served our country does not make you a foreign policy expert, and it does not take away from my right to express my opinion. Let's hear some facts about why you think increasing troops is a bad idea, instead of just bullying and ridiculing me because you are a vet. Perhaps you would like to publicly debate the issue? Were you conscripted, or did you sign up? Did you receive any benefits from taxpayers like me? I have worked hard for 40 years and paid more taxes than some make in income. I have earned my right to express my opinion. James Zeeb Posted January 18, 2007 10:28 PM
