Why Democrats Are Getting Cold Feet About Dean

WHY DEMOCARTS ARE GETTING COLD FEET ABOUT DEAN Bumbling on the national security issue, the party’s vulnerable point, has raised doubts The Star-Ledger,Wednesday January 21, 2004 By Alain L. Sanders You can’t be casual with national security. The American people aren’t. And that is one of the reasons Howard Dean is already hurting, after only his first contest. For Dean, the stumbling block is not that he is antiwar. The problem is his predisposition for impulsive, naïve, foot-in-mouth pronouncements, complete with spins, back-flips and assorted clarifications to set the record straight-none of which inspire confidence, especially when it comes to national security. America is at war against terror. Whether it is wisely or unwisely engaged is one of the questions the American people will answer in November. With Saddam Hussein in the bag-but with casualties in Iraq rising and Osama bin Laden still on the loose-it is not clear what the voters’ policy preferences will be. If recent electoral history is any indication, however, the voters’ candidate preference-and thus the outcome of the general election-will likely go the way of the presidential aspirant who appears comparatively more competent, more solid, and more trustworthy on the question of national security. In 1964, for example, Lyndon Johnson won overwhelmingly over Barry Goldwater, in large measure because Goldwater seemed ideologically rigid and unduly aggressive on matters of war. In 1968, in the aftermath of the riotous Democratic National Convention, Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey appeared to be someone incapable of imposing even a modicum of order uponAmerica’s external or internal security. And in 1972, Nixon defeated George McGovern in a landslide because McGovern gave the impression that he would cut the military down to size to retreat not only from Vietnam, but from every other corner of the globe. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for a second term to Ronald Reagan in 1980 in part because he projected an image of weakness and vulnerability to the world in the face of the Iranian capture ofU.S. embassy personnel. And Michael Dukakis displayed such an aura of executive ineffectiveness in 1988 that the first George Bush rode to victory using, among other things, the Democrats’ own photo-op display of Dukakis riding atop a tank like a buffoon. To be sure, many other issues were involved in these elections besides national security. But significantly, the candidate with the more pregnable national security image, record or position wound up on the losing side of each contest. Moreover, all but one of the losers (Goldwater) were Democrats-indicating a Democratic Party national security posture generally prone to electoral defeat, and suggesting the need for the party to develop a clearer, less penetrable, and more steadfast approach. In this context, consider some of Dean’s national security fumbles and the challenges they pose for him in front of voters. On theWorld Trade Center terrorist attack: “Even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.” OnIraq: “The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” On Palestinian terrorism: “I don’t find it convenient to blame people. Nobody should have violence, ever. But they do, and it’s not our place to take sides.” And on national security generally: “We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won’t always have the strongest military.” Given the doubts raised by such sloppy remarks-and the risks posed by the international situation-it is not surprising that the two winning strategies in Iowa turned out to be experience, the one followed by Sen. John Kerry, and positive thinking, the one used by Sen. John Edwards. These two candidates also embody the classic choice offered to voters in many elections: experience vs. the fresh face. Very often the fresh face succeeds, as in the case of Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000, when purely domestic issues predominate. Because of the national security dangers at hand, however, the 2004 election is more likely to be decided on the basis of experience, reliability and substance. By all signs, this is the card Bush is preparing to play. It is also the card that probably only an experienced Democratic insider can beat. And on that score, we still need to hear from retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman inNew Hampshire and elsewhere. There is no way to avoid the national security question in this presidential election. The historical record points in one direction. When national security arises, whoever obtains the trust of the people on the issue wins the general election. As the primary season unfolds, Democratic primary voters will need to decide who can do that best. TheIowa results suggest Democrats are seriously considering the matter. Reprinted with permission from The Star Ledger.