One Way Or Another

I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'm pretty sure Atrios is right and the Republican nominee is not, in fact, going to be running on a commitment to end the war in Iraq. Predictions aside, though, it's worth noting that a significant faction of Democrats have persistently believed that the Bush administration was about to begin withdrawing from Iraq ever since 2004.

After three years of that forecast being perpetually wrong, it's now been displaced onto Mitt Romney or John McCain or whomever. Since this idea is so persistent, I think it bears mentioning that it's part of a pretty contradictory set of beliefs. The conventional wisdom, in essence, holds that running stridently against the war spells political doom for the Democrats. It also holds, however, that running stridently against the war is unnecessary because the Republicans will end the war anyway. Meanwhile, the Republicans are supposed to be doing this for political purposes.

These things can't, however, all be true. And, indeed, I think time has proven that the Republicans basically think the "doves are doomed" theory of politics is correct. They attribute their loss in 2006 to corruption and (hilariously) to "earmarks," attribute their wins in 2002 and 2004 to "toughness" and think that it always makes sense politically for the GOP to mark itself off as more militaristic and nationalistic than the opposition. My guess is that the persistent belief that Bush would end the war was driven by a fear that this theory is correct; it's a form of wishful thinking. But people should get over it. The war is, in fact, unpopular. The GOP is, in fact, determined to stay robustly to the Democrats' right on the war. The job facing Democratic politicians and operatives is to learn how to win the argument, not to dream up reasons why that won't be necessary.

Comments

a significant faction of Democrats have persistently believed that the Bush administration was about to begin withdrawing from Iraq ever since 2004.

various BushCo appendages have been saying, pretty regularly, that they're going to be reducing troop levels in the next F.U. or so, since 2003. that's what "as they stand up, we'll stand down" is all about.

Posted by cleek | May 21, 2007 1:24 PM

I don't get it. Why would those Democrats who were afraid that militarism is a political winner be the ones who believe that Bush would end the war? Wouldn't they believe that Bush would do the politically smart thing?

I guess you're saying they were hoping he would do this, so they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with the politics of the war? Ok, but it doesn't sound very logical.

I know I've said this before, but isn't the best thing the Dems could possibly hope for be that Bush keep doing what he's doing now; that is, keep us in Iraq?

Posted by Jim W | May 21, 2007 1:25 PM

While I agree that no feasible Republican general election candidate will run on pulling out, I realized the other day that I do think that, in the unlikely event of a win by a non-McCain Republican (a win by any Republican being unlikely and a win by a non-McCain one slightly more so), there will be a very large reduction in troop level sometime in 2009. If we think one main reason no such reduction has occurred is that Bush can't admit failure, and reduction by anyone else wouldn't involve that, what stops Giuliani or Romney from reducing/pulling out?

Posted by washerdreyer | May 21, 2007 2:01 PM

They attribute their loss in 2006 to corruption and (hilariously) to "earmarks,"

Yeah! Whenever I hear that line on RedState, I'm quite tickled.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 21, 2007 2:02 PM

"Yeah! Whenever I hear that line on RedState, I'm quite tickled."

It's the fault in the 50/50 Forever theory that Mickey Kaus loves.

Parties can fool themselves for long periods of time about why they're losing.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 2:06 PM

what stops Giuliani or Romney from reducing/pulling out?

A need to have some marker of cultural connection to his base. It's not evangelical Christianity, it's not hatred for homosexuals, it's not visceral hatred for minorities, and it's unlikely to be strong anti-abortion action. That leaves war.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 21, 2007 2:11 PM

"If we think one main reason no such reduction has occurred is that Bush can't admit failure, and reduction by anyone else wouldn't involve that, what stops Giuliani or Romney from reducing/pulling out?"

I don't think it's an inability to admit failure that keeps Bush in Iraq. I think it's a desire to try to keep losing a war off his legacy.

If the US is still holding the Green Zone in January 2009, Bush will always be able to argue that the eventual loss wasn't his fault.

I'd assume any Republican successor would reduce troops in Iraq in 2009 for reasons of their own political survival. But a full pullout would obviously be less likely than under a Dem.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 2:15 PM

I'm hoping Mitt Romney wins.

He is the only candidate with the sheer balls it would take to switch from pro-war to anti-war two weeks after the Republican primary results come in.

I've enjoyed his move to the right quite a lot, but an equally bold shift back to the center? That would be his coup de grace.

Posted by owenz | May 21, 2007 2:19 PM

BYE BYE BABY: PRODUCTION FALLING IN NORTHERN AL GHAWAR ...Barkley Rosser at Max Sawicky's says Saudi production has peaked and is in irrevocable and relatively rapid decline. Whatever, I bet Cheney knows.

I am not completely sure what this means, but I can imagine, because of all the equity SA owns around the world, that the SA oligarchy will command protection for a while even after the oil runs out.

My guess is that not only are we not leaving Iraq, but that the Resource Wars have only just begun. Empire is US needs a lot of jet fuel. If we were Sweden, I could imagine a pull-back and an attempt at a more self-sustaining low-energy economy. But we are not Sweden and the doves are doomed.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 21, 2007 3:11 PM

Sad to say, the GOP has a real chance to keep the White House.

Edwards is the only really recognizable national Democrat who opposes the Iraq debacle and he's not polling all that well right now (with luck that will change, and soon!). The rest of them, especially Sen. Clinton, are running on variations of "we have to stay". If you offer nothing different from the other guy, I might as well take the other guy. Sen. Kerry can explain it better than I can; he's had practice.

I am at a loss to explain why the big name Dems are clinging to Iraq in the face of endless polls saying the voters want change. But you can see them dragging their feet like little kids going to the dentist.

Posted by zak822 | May 21, 2007 5:42 PM

For about 18 months I've been persistently saying that Bush would attack Iran. I've been wrong so far, praise Jesus, and the longer I'm wrong the happier I'll be. But there's still lots of evidence it's in the pipes.

Posted by John Emerson | May 21, 2007 9:31 PM

There is absolutely no evidence.

Posted by Alex | May 22, 2007 5:24 AM

Arthur Silber has some evidence, and is still worried. And very bitter.

Silber also believes we are not leaving Iraq.

"Unless most of the Middle East erupts in a regional war, with nuclear Armageddon possibly thrown into the mix to make it especially interesting -- and which eventuality would most likely result from a United States attack on Iran -- tens of thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for the rest of your lifetime. I confidently say that with regard to every one of you reading this.

For the rest of your lifetime. Get used to it."

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 22, 2007 10:05 AM

No, he doesn't. He has a rant and one unsourced claim from "the Century Foundation", which could be anything from the resurrected brain of Clausewitz to a dog with a keyboard.

Posted by Alex | May 22, 2007 10:16 AM

"Edwards is the only really recognizable national Democrat who opposes the Iraq debacle"

Are you saying that Obama isn't "really recognizable"? I'd disagree. But if you're right, that's one heck of an endorsement for him. He's polling within 10% of Clinton before (according to you) anyone's even heard of him.

Posted by Jon Marcus | May 22, 2007 11:45 AM

For some reason Sen. Obama had slipped my mind. Odd, considering I'll likely vote for him in the primary! Thanks for the reminder.

I was wrong about how well Edwards is polling too, at least in early voting states.

Mea culpa

Let's see how it plays out.

Posted by zak822 | May 22, 2007 12:21 PM