home > archive > 2002 > this article
National security: The real reason behind the Democrats' defeat
Now that the dust is settling from the historic Democratic rout in the 2002 midterm elections, people are asking how could the Democrats have suffered this unprecedented defeat. (After all, this is only the fourth time since the Civil War that the presidential party gained in a midterm election)
The reason for the Democratic failure is an obvious one: It's national security, stupid! In the post-September 11th world, national security and foreign policy issues are more important to voters than domestic issues.
Republicans were able to win because the public saw them and, especially President
Bush, as being strong on national security issues and viewed the Democrats to
be weak on them. This state of affairs came about because many Democrats were
seen as putting partisan politics ahead of national security. They tried to appease
the peace movement and the far left by voting against Bush's efforts to get rid
of Saddam Hussein. They voted against plans for a Department of Homeland Security
to appease unions and sided with the flag-burning, America-hating peace movement
at a time when patriotism was running high.
The Democrats made the mistake of thinking that Americans had forgotten about the danger of terrorism and the war against it. They tried to run on domestic issues while pursuing a peace agenda that came straight out of 1968.
Average Americans scared to death of bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other terrorists would have nothing of this. Some Democrats like Dick Gephardt saw this and got in step behind the president but too many of the party's leaders forgot about the danger of terrorism. Many liberals and moderate leftists who would have normally voted Democrat probably pushed the button or the screen for the GOP this election season because of their fear of terror.
What this means is that for the first time since World War II foreign policy issues were more important in an American Congressional election than domestic issues. It's a new political paradigm in a new political world. With the September 11th horror strong in recent memory, Americans are more interested in having a president who will take strong action against our enemies abroad than one who will deliver prescription drug benefits or ensure the future of social security.
Republicans seem to have realized this but Democrats
haven't. The Democrats tried to run a 1990s style campaign focusing on domestic
issues and giving concessions to the far left. The Republicans ran a campaign
for the year 2002, waving the flag and emphasizing their President's strong stand
on defense and national security. They also took advantage of the fact that the
leaders taking a strong stand against terror in 2001 were Republicans, Rudy Giuliani
and George W. Bush.
That's hard to say. If the terrorist attacks against America continue and more third world dictators try to develop weapons of mass destruction, the public will continue to side with the Republican hawks against the Democratic doves. If we win the terror war, if Al Qaeda and it's allies are eradicated and Saddam and company are removed, then it may go back to politics as usual.
If the terror war continues, then the Republicans will continue to win big.
The major change will be that the Democrats in
2004 will probably ignore the peace movement and become super hawks. We'll probably
see ex-hippies criticizing President Bush for not being tough enough on terror
and for not taking sufficient military action. The Democratic presidential nominee
in 2004 will probably stress his or her willingness to take military action and
to use law enforcement against terrorists at home.
Daniel G. Jennings is a freelance writer and journalist who lives and
works in Denver, CO. He has worked as a reporter and editor for daily and weekly
newspapers in five states.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.