Abstract
National security issues will play a key role in determining the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. In the wake of 9/11 and heightened concern about threats at home and abroad, Democrats will need to address these issues and project a convincing message for dealing with terrorist threats and international uncertainties.
It will not be enough to rehash the Bush administration's flawed decisions leading to an unnecessary war in Iraq. It will not be sufficient to criticize unilateralist policies that have cost the United States friends and support abroad. Democrats need to provide a positive agenda to show that they can and will protect the country.
It is also fundamental to understand that nine months before the election, President George W. Bush has not sealed the deal with a majority of Americans and that he has major vulnerabilities as he faces the electorate for a second time. Bush has problems with voters on his lack of understanding of the problems of ordinary Americans; the sluggish, jobless economic recovery; his disposition toward the wealthy and corporations; and his solutions for providing prescription drugs for the elderly.
These and other lessons can be drawn from briefings in January 2004 from pollsters Celinda Lake of Lake Snell Perry & Associates and Jeremy Rosner of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., national polls conducted in January, and an examination of the 2002 congressional election results, and the first Democratic nomination tests in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That the election is winnable by either Bush or the Democratic nominee was evident in two national polls conducted in January. A New York Times/CBS News poll released January 18 asked respondents to choose between Bush and an unnamed Democratic candidate. The result: 43 percent named Bush; 45 percent chose the Democratic candidate. Similarly, a Washington Post/ABC News poll published the next day asked: “If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, or for the Democratic nominee for president?” Forty-eight percent chose Bush, 46 percent the as-yet-unnamed Democratic nominee.
According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in early January, the economy was the number one presidential election issue for 32 percent of those interviewed. However, pollster Celinda Lake pointed out that 42 percent of respondents chose one of the next three top issues–the Iraq war, homeland security and military defense, and foreign affairs.
These concerns played a key role in the 2002 congressional elections. Then, too, the economy and domestic issues were more important to the American public, but the significant portion of the electorate that cared strongly about national security overwhelmingly supported Republicans. Democrats focused on topics on which their positions were preferred–education, prescription drugs, and Social Security. Republicans turned the tables by exploiting congressional votes on the use of force in Iraq and establishing the Department of Homeland Security–as well as scary pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein–to arouse voter concerns about the Democrats' approach to terrorism. It worked in several key races.
Republicans plan to sustain this focus in 2004. Polls show overwhelming support for the president's handling of the battle against terrorism by a 2 or 3:1 margin. The White House understands: Bush led off his January 20 State of the Union address with a justification of his efforts in the war in Iraq, linking it inextricably to the war on terror.
He argued: “We can go forward with confidence and resolve–or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.” Implicitly, he accused Democrats of being “soft on terrorism” just as they had been “soft on defense” during the Cold War. As columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., pointed out in the January 23 Washington Post, the Bush campaign theme is “vote for Bush or stand with the terrorists.”
The first national Republican ads run in Iowa and New Hampshire focused on terrorism and championed preemptive attacks against the nation's enemies.
How Democrats respond to this message in the face of a Republican advantage on many national security issues will be a key to the elections. While it is not useful to rehash why the United States got into the Iraq war–about 60 percent of Americans still support the war–Iraq policy offers as an opening to other questions about the competence of the Bush administration:
62 percent of voters feel that there has been an unacceptable number of U.S. military casualties (Washington Post poll)
61 percent think that the administration is hiding or lying about what it knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (New York Times poll)
58 percent oppose the U.S. attacking another country first (Times poll)
55 percent believe that the United States is less liked and respected abroad than several years ago (Greenberg poll)
Even Democrats appear to be moving beyond the pro and con debate on the war. While Gov. Howard Dean's outright opposition to the war propelled him into the early lead in the Democratic nominating process, Iowa voters chose Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as their top two choices, even though 75 percent of Iowa Democrats opposed the war the senators had voted for. Similarly, in New Hampshire, while voters overwhelmingly opposed the war in Iraq, they picked Kerry as their top choice.
The polling data suggest some positive national security messages that Democrats could put forward. For example, Americans are concerned about a biological or chemical weapons attack. Democrats could propose enhancing port and border security and beefing up security around chemical plants, dams, and nuclear power facilities. The administration's large increase in spending for homeland security in its latest budget is likely a preemptive response to such proposals.
The Rosner research suggested linking issues like the control of nuclear weapons to the issues of terrorism and homeland security that are prominently in the public's mind. While few Americans were concerned about nuclear weapons–particularly when compared to chemical and biological weapons–Bush opponents could link efforts to prevent Russian nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists to protecting the homeland from a smuggled bomb across the border. And they can argue that the administration has underfunded the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in Russia. The Nuclear Threat Initiative organization tested some of these themes in three ads that ran in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Rosner's research also suggests that many Americans endorse a foreign policy agenda that goes beyond defending against terrorism and security threats and accentuates building a more peaceful and prosperous world based on hope rather than fear. Democrats can propose solutions for global poverty, human rights transgressions, and the spread of diseases and environmental degradation across international borders–as well as responding to terrorism.
Finally, the analysis indicates substantial voter support for multilateralism rather than “going it alone.” This argument is sometimes put in the context of international burden sharing–asking other countries to contribute more troops and money for keeping the peace abroad. Democrats can also talk about rebuilding America's now-tarnished image through cooperation and coalitions with other countries. Bush hinted he was sensitive to this issue in the State of the Union, enumerating the countries involved in the coalition in Iraq.
In short, American voters were almost evenly divided in 2000 and remain in a 50-50 split more than three years later. Bush is liked as a strong leader and some of his policies are popular, but many others are opposed by half or more of Americans. One of the major differences between Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Whomever will be heightened concern over threats not felt since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989. To win in November, Democrats will need to engage on national security issues in a way that reassures the American people.