Watching democrat Jim McDermott hold forth from Iraq on how President Bush is misleading the American people made me wonder how such a smart person can do such a dumb thing. The trio of Democratic House members who traveled to Iraq–and then, while still on enemy soil, gave numerous interviews critical of U.S. foreign policy–are learned people with significant life experience.
There’s not a lawyer among them. McDermott is a psychiatrist, Michigan’s David Bonior is a former seminarian and California’s Mike Thompson is a former college professor. All three served during the Vietnam war. McDermott counseled troubled troops; Thompson was awarded a Purple Heart. They know the face of war, and they were seared by it. Their arguments against a preemptive military strike on Iraq have merit, but Baghdad is not the place to wage the debate.
Democrats are having a hard enough time challenging President Bush’s high-flying war policy. The imagery of these lawmakers broadcasting live from Baghdad invited unflattering comparisons to “Hanoi Jane,” Jane Fonda’s trip to the Vietnamese capital during the height of the Vietnam War. But Fonda was a confused, young actress, Sen. John McCain reminded us this week. McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and it took him decades to forgive Fonda, if he has. What his fellow lawmakers did was worse, he said, because they should know better. Maybe the peace wing of the Democratic Party, such as it is, will applaud McDermott and company for standing up for what they believe. But before anybody sings too many hosannas, it should be pointed out that two of the three are in safe Democratic districts, and the third (Bonior) is a lame duck. They had nothing to lose. But their colleagues in less secure situations have a lot to lose if the peacenik label or the loony-left image that dogged the Democratic Party for years is revived.
That’s why Democratic House leader Richard Gephardt moved with uncharacteristic speed to negotiate compromise language with the White House on a war resolution. By cozying up to Bush, Gephardt upended a delicate bipartisan coalition in the Senate, and irritated Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who found himself the odd man out as the White House courted a willing Gephardt. It took courage for Gephardt to link up with Bush. A substantial chunk of the House Democratic Caucus opposes the war resolution. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the leader of the antiwar faction, told Gephardt he has 72 votes. But Gephardt never wavered. He remembers how his vote against the first gulf war resolution inhibited his ability to later run for president, and advisers have been telling him for some time that he needs to move to the right on some issue. “This is a good one for him,” says an adviser, “because he actually believes in it.”
Supporting Bush also hastens the legislative process and allows the Democrats to change the subject, if only for a few weeks, to the faltering economy. One Democrat suspects Bush’s economic policy is to bomb Iraq. “He thinks a military victory will give consumers more confidence to go out and spend money. It’s a two-year plan to give the economy some semblance of growth.”
Cynicism about the other side’s motives is rampant on Capitol Hill, where members aren’t sure who will be top dog when they come back next year. Neither side is inclined to yield much in the way of compromise when victory could be at hand after Nov. 5. The new Homeland Security Department has fallen prey to the machinations of patriots in both parties and is another case where lawmakers should know better. When Democrats first introduced the legislation, Republicans dismissed it as big government and bureaucracy building. When Bush saw that the bill was popular, and that the families of the 9-11 victims supported it, he co-opted the idea. “Suddenly it’s the Bush bill, and if you’re against it, you’re unpatriotic,” says a House Democrat.
There is some utility in putting homeland functions under one roof, but there’s nothing magic about the formula, and it’s not going to make us safer. But it’s given Bush and the Republicans a campaign issue. The bill to create the department is stalled in the Senate where Republicans are filibustering because they don’t want to adopt a compromise measure on labor rules for the department’s 170,000 workers. They also don’t want Republicans in tight races put in the position of voting against labor. So they are invoking their right to block the legislation by making sure it can’t get over the 60-vote hurdle.
In politics, the winner is the one who can shape the debate, and the Republicans have made the Homeland Security debate about “union bosses,” the phrase Minority Leader Trent Lott uses repeatedly in describing the impasse. Bush could have his Homeland Security bill tomorrow if Republicans would support a compromise negotiated by Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee. He argues that labor unrest is no way to launch a new department and that workers worried about their own personal security can’t effectively protect the national security.
Bush has so far stiffed Chafee, which is a mistake that could be costly after Nov. 5. Just as New Jersey Senator Bob Torricelli’s abrupt decision to quit his Senate race reminds us how quickly politics can change, a prominent Republican who met recently with Chafee came away wondering why he’s in the Senate other than he’s his father’s son. Unlike the late Sen. John Chafee, who was highly regarded, the younger Chafee seems to get animated only when talking about shoeing horses, which is what he did before being recruited for his father’s seat. Smart people would do well to not underestimate Chafee. In trying to win back the Senate, the Republicans may have overlooked the obvious, which is keeping Chafee in their camp.
