A War Strategy
. . . for the Democrats.

November 19, 2001 8:35 a.m.

ames Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum have written a memo on how Democrats should position themselves for the 2002 and 2004 elections. It should be sobering reading for Republicans.

Their basic task seems to be to buck up Democratic spirits. President Bush's popularity, they say, in no way imperils the party's prospects. This is, in part, because the public mood is now more receptive to Democratic arguments about government activism as a way of building a national "community" — a familiar point from the punditry of the last two months. In addition, a war on "fundamentalism" is raising the importance of "tolerance," "freedom of choice," and "freedom of religion" for voters: "Religious fundamentalism and fanaticism are uncomfortable with the life choices and gender roles at the center of American life." This, too, is a common subtheme of a lot of the punditry. (You'd almost think we were fighting for abortion rights.)

Second, the Democratic strategists think that the president's popularity is shallow: "While George W. Bush is popular, voter doubts are close to the surface. We should not give voice to these doubts in this period, but we should be prepared to highlight issues that allow those doubts to emerge later. The character of Bush's budget and tax policies — economic damage, undermining social programs and geared toward big business — help set up the congressional choice for next year." Among the voter doubts they identify: "Bush may be in over his head"; "Bush's budget policies may produce deficits and hurt the economy long-term"; "Bush always sides with big business and powerful interests"; "Bush is bad on the environment."

Carville et al recognize that the Republicans have an advantage on security issues. But they are not worried about that disadvantage for two reasons. First, they think the more politically important question is whether voters see the Democrats as being just as patriotic as Republicans — and they are convinced that from the polls that voters do. Second, their polling also indicates that voters want the president to concentrate on fighting terrorism but want congressmen to focus on domestic concerns, where they believe Democrats have an advantage. Health care and the environment are still powerful Democratic issues. And especially since voters assign the president and Congress different tasks, Democrats may be able to "separat[e] House Republicans from the President."

Interestingly, the Democratic strategists do not believe that their party has an advantage yet on economic issues even though they think that the Republicans' tax cuts are "out of step" with public priorities. They write, "The economy is emerging as a major issue for next year, but the Democrats do not yet have the advantage. Public confidence in the economy will likely erode further, but Democrats need to articulate strong and distinctive economic policies." They note that voters are skeptical of tax rebates, preferring policies that would promote investment.

The strategists may be overestimating the increase in public tolerance for big government; and perhaps there are public doubts about Democrats' patriotism that are, like their doubts about Bush, below the surface. Certainly, their idea that it would be wrong to "give voice" to doubts about the president now but it will be ok to do so "later" suggests a distressing complacency about how long we may be threatened by terrorism.

But on one point Carville and co. are quite correct: The public's political reaction to the war depends crucially on political leadership. They mention Tony Blair's "speech on the 'power of community,' which lays the basis for public service and modern social democracy.'" The natural reaction to physical danger and war is a kind of instinctive cultural conservatism. That can take the form of increased support for such policies as "tighter border control and limiting the number of immigrants" — the memo mentions that the polls show this — or it can take the form of statist communitarianism.

In effect, the Democrats are taking advantage of two Republican weaknesses. One is their failure over the years to offer an agenda that speaks to Americans' fears of balkanization. Sidney Blumenthal, in the Clinton years, argued that the Democrats were becoming the "one nation party" because they would hold the country together through social democracy. Republicans were off the field.

The second weakness is Republicans' narrow definition of what politics consists of. Democrats are actively shaping the public response to terror; they are arguing that terror should validate statism. Republicans aren't making a case for anything in particular. The president may be occupied with more important matters; but where are Republican congressmen?