Authors |
The Next Challenge: Locking in Democratic Gains on National Security
Three years ago, according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner polling at the time for Democracy Corps, voters favored Republicans by 29 points on the question of which party would do a better job on national security. Last night, according to exit polls, Americans who said terrorism was an “extremely important" reason for their vote cast their ballots in favor of the Republicans by only a narrow 53-46 percent margin. By contrast, those who viewed Iraq as extremely important voted in favor of the Democrats by a lopsided 60-38 percent majority. All this means that the Republican advantage on national security, which they have held ever since the aftermath of Vietnam, is now all but neutralized, at least that was the case up through last night. It is hard to overstate the transformation we could see in national politics if Democrats can lock in that change going forward. It would mean, for example, that the Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2008 would not automatically be able to count on a big edge on national security in order to offset public preferences for the Democrats on economic fairness for the middle class. Congressman Rahm Emmanuel of Illinois, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, deserves credit for recruiting so many veterans for House races this year. That move alone played a big role in last night’s victories. These “fighting Dems," did not all win. But several did, like retired Admiral Joe Sestak, who unseated Republican incumbent Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district, or Tim Walz who defeated Rep. Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota's 1st congressional district And even ones who fell short last night, like Tammy Duckworth - the double-amputee Iraq vet competing for the 6th district in Illinois - still put many Republican seats into play that otherwise likely would have been safe for the GOP. But Democrats will need to do more going forward than just recruit veterans. Now the challenge is to convince voters that there are strong policy reasons to vote for Democrats on national security - not just against George W. Bush on Iraq. Iraq will be continue to be a big part of that story, although perhaps not in the way many in the media are telling it. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats will push the President to exit Iraq. But easily as much pressure for Bush to change direction on the war is likely to come from Republicans, who learned last night what a high political price they are paying for Bush’s mishandling of the conflict. After all, it was Republicans as much as Democrats who pushed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out the door today. Now Republicans will be eager to ensure that voters are not still seething over the U.S. being bogged down in Iraq come November of 2008. Democrats will unquestionably bring increased oversight over the conduct of the war - just about the only thing congressional Republicans failed to give the White House - but they will need to avoid the temptation to focus disproportionately on past decisions, such as what the White House knew about Iraqi WMD and when. They also need to show they offer a better way to fight terrorism. House Democrats have made a good start with the “Real Security" plan they framed heading into this election. Now, they need to push elements of that plan through the legislative process, including steps to cut American energy dependence, rebuild our overstretched military, and allocate homeland security funds on the basis of risk rather than politics, as the GOP had done. This is a fluid moment in the electorate’s thinking about security. Many Americans are reassessing which party really offers a solid path for protecting the country, and has the competence to carry it out. Last night they voiced their doubts about the Republicans. The next two years will determine whether they see a better alternative in the Democrats. |
 |
||
 |
||
|
