The Iraq Debate & Other Short Stories
This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
The Democratic narrative for the 2006 elections runs something like this: The Republicans are vulnerable because of President Bush's very low approval ratings, the public's deep worries about the Iraq war, Washington ethics scandals that have touched both the House and the White House and high gas prices.
The Democrats' strategic response: Run an essentially negative campaign that attacks the president at every juncture, turn the spotlight on scandals, force high-profile debates on Iraq in Congress and blame gas prices on the White House.
The Republican story of Campaign '06 goes like this: Our perceived weaknesses have now been fixed by good news — the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formation of a new Iraqi cabinet and the announcement that Karl Rove won't be indicted — so we will do as well as we did in the other two post-9/11 elections because voters fundamentally trust us more to keep the nation safe and the Democrats are a fuzzy alternative.
The accompanying Republican strategy: Ignore ethics scandals just like the voters will, aggressively welcome all debates on Iraq as opportunities to be the national security heavyweights and to accuse the Democrats of wanting to "cut and run," press issues like immigration and gay marriage — and then outspend the opponents in every race.
These stories are not only fiction, they are specialty fiction — as formulaic and shallow as romance novels and with niche audiences like science fiction.
Only political reporters, talking heads and political professionals tell and consume stories like these. Normal voters don't think, for instance, that the situation in Iraq has changed substantially because al-Zarqawi is dead and Iraq has a cabinet.
While normal voters might think corruption flows more to the party in power than to the outs, they don't believe that Democrats are so much cleaner than Republicans that they'll vote based on that: nor do they think it matters that Rove wasn't indicted. The only people who think Bush is to blame for gas prices are people who hated him anyway. These tidy storylines exist in a world apart from normal people.
This is partly why it seems so absurd and even farcical when you see the political performance art these stories and pseudo-strategies spawn in real life settings like the Senate floor.
The Senate voted on two resolutions about the war in Iraq Thursday, only a bit more than three years after the invasion began. Though they were divided among themselves and had no chance of passing any kind of binding law, the Democrats still wanted to put on a show. The Republicans welcomed it as an opportunity to help the American people watch their political enemies destroy themselves.
The faction led by John Kerry (in what is now an epic battle to contort himself on this issue) and Russ Feingold wanted a resolution that would demand American troops be pulled from Iraq by July 2007. That got 13 votes in glorious, uncompromising defeat.
A vaguer resolution called for troops to begin to come home this year but set no "time certain" for full withdrawal. That measure got 39 votes in moderate, pragmatic defeat. Republicans got to use the phrase "cut and run" a lot. Democratic presidential aspirants got to stake out finely nuanced and blatantly opportunistic positions on the great issue of the day.
If you think the Republicans weren't happy to fight this fight, take a gander at the briefing book the Pentagon apparently prepared for Republican congressional offices. Some Democrats got it by mistake, which is why you can read it.
Take special care with "Section Four: Rapid Response." It gives Republicans ammunition in the form of bullet points on contentious claims like: "The President misled America into War"; "Pre-war intelligence was manipulated"; "Troops are dying needlessly and don't believe in the cause."
Read the draft here.
The Republicans got to fire their bullet points. Democrats tried to score points. Rhetoric happened; inaction ensued. In the world of political stories, this sort of thing is supposed to matter deeply. But if one vote changed today, well, I guess I'll switch to Tareyton.
I did find one unlikely (for me) kindred spirit in this. Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon said, "My soul cries out for something more dignified." Mine, too.
But the truth is that you can get something more dignified by talking to almost anyone you know about Iraq. Except for the most extreme partisans, Arab-haters or pacifists, everyone I know has complicated and ambivalent thoughts on the situation in Iraq. I'd say most don't think the administration has demonstrated either competence or credibility; and few think the Democrats have shown clarity, consistency or leadership. Their views on ethics scandals, gas prices, immigration and practically any issue are sensibly complicated and informed by acute balderdash detectors.
In other words, voters are grown-ups — and the silly bedtime stories politicians tell, and seem to believe, just aren't getting it done.
Dick Meyer is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer