Confidence Game

It's certainly true, as Kevin Drum says, that the GOP has a nasty taste for playing politics with national security. Nevertheless, I don't think whining about it is the best strategy. I think this talk of how the GOP wants a focus on security in November is all about psyching the Democrats out. After all, national security should be a great opposition issue. The war in Iraq is a shambles, the Bush administration's legal theories are in tatters, almost no terrorism experts think we're in good shape, etc.

The GOP hope is that if they can say "we're hoping to debate security" and the opposition reacts with defensiveness and whining then they can recreate the illusion that they're in command of these issues.

Realistically, the whole thing's a fraud. Going back months the GOP strategy has been a focus on immigration and efforts to "localize" the election in order to save House Republicans from the backlash against Bush and against Iraq. Democrats should welcome a national debate on the Republican wreckage of national security policy and just say, confidently, that they're sure they can win such a debate and then go out and win it. Joining the debate with pep, vim, and confidence is a big part of making sure you win it. Do Republicans really think people are going to hear about this tale of dead American soldiers and blindfolded Iraqi corpses and rush into the tender arms of the GOP? Or maybe it's the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan they're so eager to engage with?

Comments

only a true Winnebagan would recommend "pep and vim" as part of the Democratic strategy for '06.

Posted by brian | September 5, 2006 9:31 AM

It's awesome that someone got that reference.

"Fight for Winnebago" on MP3.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 5, 2006 9:36 AM

It needs to be noted that going after what should be considered the opponent's strength is a classic Rovian tactic. Trying to change the agenda by talking about a what is considered a favourable issue like immigration is what the Dems tried to do in elections like 2002.

I completely agree that the Dems should not shy away from the battle and face it head on. The problem in the Rovian tactis is that if it falters, it will falter bad. Really bad.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | September 5, 2006 9:51 AM

I think you're partially miscontruing Drum's argument. He says:

This is, by a long measure, the most underreported aspect of the Bush administration's war on terror. Not that they're pursuing the wrong strategy — though they are — but that in the end they don't really care that much one way or the other. Winning the war has always been secondary to winning elections.

He's not whining about politicization. He's saying that substantive foreign policy has taken a backseat to politicization.

That is, Bush is happy to say and do things which adversely affect America's security, if he thinks they'll get him elected. Or, perhaps better put, the question of whether treating Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda as non-differentiable entities was a good idea had very little impact on Bush's policy - the point is that those statements and actions win votes.

Posted by DivGuy | September 5, 2006 1:41 PM

Matthew change your typeface ,its almost unreadable by us older guys (68)

Posted by Buck Blessing | September 5, 2006 2:03 PM

While the President may be correct in his analysis that the war on terrorism is expanding to other regions, he fails to see that his approach to the issue...particularly his decision to invade Iraq and the fact that progress in the troubled country seems elusive...may well be creating the new threats. Further, as he heightens his rhetoric in order to win votes by inferring that the origin of these extremists is Islam, he foments more animosity in more countries and the terrorism equation keeps growing.

If we concede that the President is sincerely motivated...and I might be inclined to concede as much...it nonetheless doesn't make him right. Additionally, if his approach is wrong and it is actually inciting more terrorists, then his convictions simply amplify the problem and diminish the potential for him to chart a new course. In the end, his rhetoric may well be more dangerous if it is sincere...but one cannot argue that his recent remarks aren't political. The fact that his politics stem from his ideology is no comfort to the many Americans that simply reject his conclusions. In fact, that merely makes it all the more important to counter his politics.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by Daniel DiRito | September 5, 2006 3:26 PM

In 1941, after an infamous attack that killed fewer Americans than 9/11, democrats controlled the House, Senate and Oval Office. By the middle of 1945 that war, waged against a powerful alliance of totalitarian states completely mobilized for war, was over. We won.

In 2001, after an infamous attack that killed thousands of Americans, republicans controlled the House, Senate and Oval Office. By the middle of 2006 that war, waged against a few thousand individuals with trivial resources, is on-going with no clear victory in sight.

One of these parties claims to be "strong" on national security. Which one?

Maybe the republicans could use their overwhelming political power to actually win the war, kind of like the democrats did, instead of trying to convince everyone that today's war is really like WW2. The republicans need to count their lucky stars that nobody takes them seriously on this point.

Posted by Paul Mooney | September 5, 2006 8:51 PM

Or maybe it's the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan they're so eager to engage with?

You mean the same Afghanistan that Democrats think should be the focus instead of Iraq?

You can't have it both ways- complain that we aren't focused in Afghanistan and then turn around and say it should be abandoned as well.

Posted by Jess | September 6, 2006 2:28 PM

Jess, I don't see "abandoning Afghanistan" out there. Can you point to that?

Posted by Dave | September 7, 2006 5:42 PM