What’s the right sports metaphor? Slam-dunk? Hole-in-one? Touchdown? The Hat Trick? Whatever you call it, Secretary of State Colin Powell scored with his presentation of evidence before the United Nations Security Council.
Some weeks ago, this column predicted that the Bush administration would have its “Adlai Stevenson Moment,” in making its case against Iraq. You may remember that Stevenson was our ambassador to the United Nations during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. While the world held its breath, he showed up on television with U-2 photographs and sharp words, and in the process, he cleaned Russia’s clock. (After that point, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev, unlike Saddam Hussein today, at least had the decency to stop lying about the fact of offensive missiles in Cuba.)
Powell had his moment and expectations were not disappointed. But you’ll read all about that in other columns. The question I want to raise here is, “Whither the Democrats?”
According to my count, the GOP is almost unanimous in favor of invading Iraq. By contrast, the Democrats are sharply divided. On one hand, there are the principal candidates for the 2004 nomination – Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Congressman Gephardt. Early reports suggest that after Powell’s speech, they were one in admiration and support for Bush’s war. On the other hand, the liberal warhorse Ted Kennedy and newly elected House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi remained opposed. (These last two politicians, I should note, represent safer-than-safe districts.)
In the meantime, if you analyze the trend of Sen. John Kerry’s remarks about the war, it looks like the EKG of a man in cardiac fibrillation – he’s for it, he’s against it, he wants it, he doubts it, it’s wise, it’s stupid, it’s pop-goes-the-weasel. This picture begins to resemble one of Vincent Van Gogh’s late self-portraits, painted after he had gone insane – brilliant, colorful but disordered. So, what’s the problem? Has the Loyal Opposition lost its stomach for an anti-war movement?
In a word, yes. First, consider the political risks to the Democrats. While the anti-warriors point to polls showing that one-third of Americans oppose or have doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq, it seems that very few professional politicians put much faith in those numbers, as in the old saying that, “your support is a mile wide and an inch deep.”
For those nostalgic for the “good old days” of opposing Vietnam, Saddam Hussein is no Uncle Ho Chi Minh, whose faults did not include gassing his own people, lying to the U.N., and preparing bio-terror on a massive scale. So on that point, Democrats realize that the Saddam Iraqis are not terribly sympathetic. Even the Europeans know that, but are motivated chiefly by anti-Americanism. And there aren’t a lot of votes for American politicians in siding with anti-American constituencies.
Besides, Democrats also know that 9-11 was no Gulf of Tonkin phoniness – in the former, we really were attacked and thousands of innocent people died. The public knows this too. And there’s more: Democrats taking the lead in opposing the war (as some did haltingly during the brief Afghan War of 2001-02) run the risk of Republican success. Right-wing publications still chortle about all the liberals and their editorial soul mates warning of “quagmire” and “no-exit strategies,” etc. in the Afghan War. But it didn’t work out that way. As they say in Hollywood, “Success is the best deodorant,” and the success in Afghanistan sure deodorized the Bushes very well.
So this is what the Democrats are facing: If Bush’s gambit succeeds – quickly topples Saddam with few casualties on either side (I pray), finds Iraqi stockpiles of prohibited weapons and doesn’t get bogged down in some postwar (I hate to use the word, but must) quagmire – then there will be no Democrat in the White House in 2004. If the Democrats are too vocal in opposing the war now, and it proves successful, then, there may not be a Democrat in the White House in 2008, or a Democratic House or Senate anytime soon.
So, the strategy seems to place the party on both sides of the fence. A few prominent Democratic politicians (Pelosi, Kennedy) outspoken against the war to reassure the liberal base that the party still stands for something; the presidential contenders all taking the Pledge of Allegiance in the hopes of positioning themselves for the White House in ’04; and the vast majority of Democrats confused, caught between peacenik principles, old fashioned patriotism, cynical electoral calculations and just plain fear of tomorrow.
What’s it all mean? Who knows, but maybe the Dems ought to take a leaf from the French. They noisily whine and complain, fret and fry about the American bully, the sacrosanct nature of international law and the importance of more inspections.
But, in the meantime, they ordered their primo aircraft carrier, the Charles De Gaul into the Persian Gulf.
In the old cowboy movie, the gunslinger says, “When yer in a draw, kid, don’t listen to what they say, just keep lookin’ at their hands.”
And therein lies the problem: In a political draw with President Bush, the Democrats don’t have any “hands.”
