January 20, 2004, 9:24 a.m.
The War’s the Thing
Expect a Dean or Clark to stay for awhile.

The central question for the Democrats is the same now as it was before Iowa. Can the party remain united in the face of significant divisions over the war? Let's say the nomination goes to Kerry or Edwards. What will the Dean supporters do? Will many stay home, or even bolt to a third party? The polls from Iowa show that many opponents of the war voted for Kerry or Edwards. But that's not the point. The real question is whether the core of voters for whom opposition to the war is the critical issue can be made to feel comfortable with Kerry or Edwards — and whether what it would take to make the core peaceniks comfortable would drive moderate voters away. It's important to follow exactly what Kerry and Edwards say about the war as the campaign plays out, and how the Deaniacs feel about what's said.

The split over the war complicates calculations about what will happen after New Hampshire. Ordinarily we might say that after New Hampshire, only two of the four viable candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark) will survive. But I think there's another dynamic at work. Although Kerry and Edwards both voted against funding for postwar Iraq, they both supported the war itself. I think this race is probably going to come down to a battle between one of the strong antiwar candidates and one of the moderates. It's conceivable that Dean and Clark could split the strong antiwar vote and end up just behind Kerry and Edwards in New Hampshire. But I think at least one of them, and maybe both, would keep going after that. There is probably going to be at least one strong antiwar candidate in the race for some time. (Even if not, those voters are going to be potentially alienated.) And that brings us back to the central question. Will this split over the war — which overrides the usual questions of personality — be able to be patched up after the nomination is decided?

There is a scenario in which the Democratic split over the war becomes less damaging with time. If the Iraq issue continues to lose salience, as it seems to be doing now, it's conceivable that internal disagreements about foreign policy will be less of a problem for the Democrats. But I suspect that this underestimates the significance of Iraq to the core of folks pushing Dean. If Dean not only loses, but the war issue loses salience for much of the country, we could still see enough alienation by the antiwar core to hurt the Democrats in the general election. And we could still see a protest third-party candidacy. So while the Democrats could conceivably heal their divisions and unite behind a nominee, there is still a long way to go before this happens. That's why all the talk about Kerry or Edward's "electability" misses the point. Kerry and Edwards may seem more electable because of their moderation. But the real question is whether that very moderation will be able to hold Dean's disappointed core in the general election.

Let's say Iraq becomes less and less of a problem, and therefore less and less of an election issue. That may make it less of a divisive factor among Democrats, and therefore lessen the likelihood of disappointed Dean voters sitting on their hands or bolting to a third party. But if all that happens, it would only be because our presence in Iraq was succeeding — or at least that the problems were being kept within very tolerable levels. Of course, this would mean that the president would be in a very good position. If the Iraq issue is taken off the table, the president looks very good indeed.

I suppose this could backfire on the president if things went so well in Iraq that domestic issues began to focus the election — as the first president Bush. But it seems very unlikely that foreign policy will fade as a key campaign issue, no matter what. So if the occupation goes well, Democratic divisions may lessen, but this will still tell in the president's favor. The bottom line is that Democratic divisions over the war hurt them, no matter what.

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!