The War Party

Ross takes a look at what really matters to the GOP base:

When asked to name the issue they care most about, 31 percent of Republican voters picked the War in Iraq, another 17 percent picked terrorism, and another 8 percent picked "foreign policy." More potential GOP primary voters picked Iraq, in particular, than picked the economy, health care, education, abortion, and immigration combined.

As a result, Republicans have no choice but to actually compete with one another to adhere ever-more-tightly to GOP orthodoxy on the party's single weakest issue. It seems to me that a lot of folks in Democratic circles are thinking of this dynamic primarily as an opportunity to run a campaign focused on domestic issues -- seizing advantage of Republican weakness to shift the conversation to friendlier terrain -- but I see it as more of an opportunity (if the party chooses to seize it) to directly challenge the Republicans on security.

Comments

"...I see it as more of an opportunity (if the party chooses to seize it) to directly challenge the Republicans on security."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And what, go them one better on the xenophobe scale? "The base" doesn't give a good goddamned we're getting our ass kicked in Iraq and wasting the budget while doing it. They're still frothing at the mouth over 9/11 and want to kill as many brown people as possible before the spigot is shut off. Do you want to run on a platform conforming to that philosophy, such as it is? These crazy bastards are sending their sons and daughters to death and maiming by the thousands for a venture so futile and criminal in nature its architects should have long ago hanged for starting it. Democrats can't promise Republican voters any policies regarding Iraq that'll make them happy. Unless of course the Left wants to switch gears and advocate the genocide with the same gusto as McCain and Graham and the rest of the Nuremburg wannabes.

Posted by steve duncan | May 14, 2007 9:19 AM

I think what Matt is saying is that Democrats should challenge them on security by opposing what they are trying to do. That is, Democrats should be opposed to a policy of indiscriminately killing lots of brown people, particularly if doing so is very expensive.

Posted by Jim W | May 14, 2007 9:26 AM

We shouldn't assume that the 31% are all of one mind about the war. I know several Republicans who passionately want us to get out of Iraq; don't make the mistake of thinking all such people have left the party.

Fully 49% of Republicans want a change from Bush's Iraq policies. Of those, I'm sure some want us out, some want to expand the war to Iran and Syria, etc., but they're not a hive mind on this issue.

Posted by Steve | May 14, 2007 9:44 AM

I recently came across a book I'd missed when it came out last fall: "Voting to Kill" by National REview's Jim Geraghty. From the blurb:

"In this insightful book, he deconstructs all the theories about Republican popularity as part of a craving for family values and focuses on what he considers the real issue: national security and safety in the face of terrorist threats. Americans favor a political party they think will not hesitate to kill terrorists. "

The argument that GOP voters in 2002 and 2004 wanted above all to kill people seems valid. The argument that American voters would continue to vote for killing people, above all other issues, forever, seems to have been conclusively debunked in November 2006. Thank god.

Posted by Matt Steinglass | May 14, 2007 9:47 AM

It seems to me that a lot of folks in Democratic circles are thinking of this dynamic primarily as an opportunity to run a campaign focused on domestic issues

I used to think that Democratic politicians would campaign on domestic issues mostly as a cynical maneuver of "playing to their strengths" in order to get votes. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of Democrats really believe that foreign policy issues aren't as important or that many establishment Dems aren't comfortable about talking about foreign policy. Another aspect, I think, is that to be considered a "mature" on foreign policy, you mostly have to imitate Republican talking points. Because Democrats don't actually believe in Republican foreign policy stances, they'd rather not talk about foreign policy at all rather than talk about what they believe and get tarred as "unserious" by the establishment. But Matt's right-- this is the time when the Republicans are weak, and the Democrats have an opportunity to attack their strenghts and cripple them on this issue-- if the Democrats are willing to take a stand.

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 9:51 AM

"It seems to me that a lot of folks in Democratic circles are thinking of this dynamic primarily as an opportunity to run a campaign focused on domestic issues -- seizing advantage of Republican weakness to shift the conversation to friendlier terrain" -MY

Who are these people, and where can I go to slap them upside the head? You do *not* win elections in post-9/11 America by "pivoting" to "domestic issues" because you *think* those constitute "friendlier terrain" - or did these professional idiots forget the elections of 2002 and 2004? If Republicans say, "Terrorists are gonna kill you!" the proper counter-attack is not, "Probably not you personally; check out our nine-point education plan!"

"but I see it as more of an opportunity (if the party chooses to seize it) to directly challenge the Republicans on security." -MY

Yes, it is - as long as Democrats use it to oppose mindless gun-waving (and -shooting), instead of the *other* popular Beltway-Democratic national security policy position, which seems to be accepting that Republicans are tougher and smarter than Democrats are, and copying them (a la Peter Beinart) - when the popular position Democrats *should* be able to coalesce around *ought* to be stop-fucking-things-up-just-to-show-how-tough-they-are. Except, well, that's no fun (and, people at DC dinner parties think you're boring), especially for the moderate faux-hawks of the right wing of the Democratic party who have to prove they're superior to the DFH/DFA/Democratic wing *somehow*, even if it means clipping the left wing entirely.

Posted by Chris | May 14, 2007 9:52 AM

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of Democrats really believe that foreign policy issues aren't as important or that many establishment Dems aren't comfortable about talking about foreign policy.

I remember Wes Clark talking about how he was invited to brief the Democratic Senators and Congressmen on foreign policy, but he had to stop doing the briefings because he could never get more than a dozen people to show up. I wish I could find a link for where I read this. It really does suggest a total lack of interest in the substantive issues involved.

That said, the freshman class of '06 is relatively promising on this score.

Posted by Steve | May 14, 2007 10:41 AM

Another sector of the electorate holds interesting views pertinent to ending (or not) the war. How many people part of "the base" on the right are perfectly comfortable with war and famine and death and destruction in the Middle East because it's all part of the recipe needing assembled for Armageddon? I'd say sizable numbers think achieving peace in Iraq actually thwarts or forestalls God's will.

Posted by steve duncan | May 14, 2007 11:02 AM

As a result, Republicans have no choice but to actually compete with one another to adhere ever-more-tightly to GOP orthodoxy on the party's single weakest issue.

This is quite a leap in logic, Matt. The poll data Ross cites merely says a plurality of GOP voters chose Iraq as the issue they most care about. That doesn't mean all or even most of these folks support current administration policy or "GOP orthodoxy" on the issue. One could logically care "a great deal" about what's going on in Iraq and, say, support immediate withdrawal. Or partition. Or phased withdrawal. Or whatever. Indeed, if the buzz about a coming rebellion among Republican office holders is valid, there soon may no longer exist an orthodox GOP position on the issue.

Posted by Jasper | May 14, 2007 1:18 PM

Ron Paul!

Posted by Cal Ulmann | May 14, 2007 3:44 PM