By
Riding a wave of anti-war sentiment and disapproval for the President, Democrats managed to take control of Congress through November elections.
In late April, they mobilized their forces to approve an Iraq War spending bill that called for a timetable for troop withdrawal. Regardless of whether this represents the popular sentiments of the people, President Bush’s threat and eventual veto of the bill projects both parties in images of bickering and partisan gridlock.
A similar situation occurred in 1995, when Newt Gingrich engineered a Republican takeover of the legislature after Bill Clinton’s first two years in office. Many Republicans ran on a platform of support for Gingrich’s “Contract With America (CWA),” which was a set of Congressional rule changes and the first ten bills Congress would try to pass. However, Gingrich misjudged political support for the CWA, as the shift in popular voting was more because of a change in political culture than voter ideology.
As a result, Clinton was able to veto, upon threatening to do so, many of the ambitious projects of the Republican legislature while slowly rebuilding his own political credibility. This political stalemate culminated with the shutdown of the federal government in winter 2005-06, in which people made it clear they were more interested in having a functioning government than support many funding cuts from the Gingrich Congress.
If Democrats plan on maintaining there hard-line stance on the limitation of Iraq War funding, it is likely that the President will continue to veto anything that sets for planned withdrawal from Iraq. As a result, Democrats must ensure that recent election victories are in fact a “mandate” for troop removal from Iraq, and not simply a product of political culture. If not, they face the same fate as the Gingrich Congress, which was forced to take softer stances on many issues.
For those who want to see serious changes made in the Iraq War policy, whether it’s setting a timetable for withdrawal or increasing the accountability of Iraqi security forces, now is the time, as both parties will be forced to compromise. The Democrats will not be able to force a troop withdrawal yet, so they should seek a compromise to ensure that some progress is made on Iraq War policy.
However, if results are not evident in the upcoming months, much Republican support for the President will start to fade because of, among other things, upcoming elections.
For example, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s plan B?”
Plan B for Democrats should be to discontinue its efforts for radical solutions to the Iraq War, or risk losing their current public support in light of partisan struggles. Instead, they should focus on developing a sensible war policy that can be effective in stabilizing the country. However, a compromise bill likely isn’t going to change the fact that the leadership of this war has a blundering strategy and positive results will be nearly impossible.
As a result, Republicans in Congress will join Democrats in supporting more progressive efforts in Iraq, if not a total pullout, as they continue to distance themselves from the President for the 2008 elections. Then, 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats will be up for reelection in the Senate, suggesting the potential for Democrats to gain more seats if the war, increasingly a symbol of the Bush Presidency and Republicans, continues to go badly.
If Democrats really do want to pull out of Iraq, this is how to do it, patiently wait for the train wreck in Iraq to break up Republican coalitions, then swoop in to override the next time Bush vetoes a call for withdrawal. However, Democrats should also be open to the prospect of Iraq being dangerously destabilized without American forces, an image which will probably backfire on Democrats, swinging the political culture back to the right.
Instead, the opportunity to make positive policy changes in Iraq should be used to raise the bar for Iraqi leaders and force them to start dealing with some of the problems that encourage continued fighting, such as the uneven distribution of oil revenues and anti-Baathist laws preventing Sunnis from having some opportunities Shiites and Kurds have.
Behaving more brashly will probably belay the recent growth in Democratic support and close the door on the chance to make positive changes in Iraq.
Tim Robertson is a graduate student in the department of political science. E-mail him at trobertson@louisvillecardinal.com.
