America
Votes And The Spin
Masters Wobble
By Michael J W Stickings
09 November, 2006
Nationalinterest.org
Editor's note: At the time of going to press, the
Democrats had captured 227 seats in the House of Representatives, the
Republicans had 195 thus giving control to the Democrats. The Senate
race was still undecided
Let's
assume that the Democrats win back the House but not the Senate. Let's
also assume that the situation in Iraq continues to worsen or remain
poor, at least in terms of American public and political perception.
The realities on the ground
in Iraq and in other global hotspots like Iran and North Korea aside,
the American political landscape over the next two years is likely to
be dominated by a battle for control of the dominant political narrative
in preparation for the presidential election in 2008. Even the races
within both parties for the 2008 nomination will be battles for narrative
control.
This battle will challenge
what has been an enduring political status quo in the Grand Old Party's
(GOP's) favor. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, the
White House and the Republican Congress that has rubber-stamped its
policies have controlled the narrative of American politics.
Republican success in both
2002 and 2004 only confirmed that voters in large numbers bought the
spin that the dangerous post-September 11 environment required Republican,
and specifically President George W Bush's, leadership. Bush came into
office as a self-declared "uniter", and he had an opportunity
to lead a bipartisan political climate after September 11, but instead
both the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq have been used
as wedges to establish a clear divide between strong, loyal Republicans
and weak, disloyal Democrats.
And the narrative stuck,
for a time, until it started to unravel. With Iraq looking more and
more like a failure of historic proportions and with the disaster that
was Hurricane Katrina exposing devastating flaws at the top, the Republican
narrative collapsed.
Sort of. As expected, it
popped up all over the place as an increasingly desperate Republican
Party looked to play the "soft on terrorism" (or "Democrats
are traitors") card as a last-ditch effort to terrify voters into
their column. The vilification of gays and Latino immigrants is also
pervasive, but the more significant enemy of the Republican narrative
is the Democratic strawman who would hide under the bed while Muslim
terrorists overrun the civilized world.
Democrats, for their part,
have done well in the polls more because of Bush's failings and failures
than an effective rival narrative. In their efforts to nationalize the
midterm elections, Democrats have been critical of Bush's handling of
the Iraq war, but the war more or less speaks for itself. It's been
a disaster.
Much may change with Democrats
winning back the House, though that change will likely have limits.
Bush will still wield enormous power as commander-in-chief and, less
formally, as occupier of the bully pulpit. He would be sure to use his
veto power to halt legislation coming out of the House (and a Republican
Senate, nastier than ever, would help out) and, as he has throughout
his presidency, he would use his signing statements to reformulate legislation
according to his own imperial whims.
The investigative
narrative
But here's where the battle
of narratives would begin. A Democratic House will not be a legislative
body so much as an investigative body, as discussed by Michael Crowley
in his recent essay for The New Republic, "Subpoena Envy".
Already, would-be Democratic committee chairs like Henry Waxman, John
Conyers and John Dingell are looking ahead to investigating the entire
Bush presidency - and rightly so.
With the all-important subpoena
power, a cohesive majority questing after justice and a base that wants
the "crooks" and "liars" to be held accountable,
they will seek to make the case that Bush and the Republicans have been
incompetent at best, and criminal at worst.
Such investigations may or
may not be successful in uncovering negligence or malfeasance, but damage
could still be done. And, further investigations would lead into, and
then complement, what is likely to be a dynamic primary season for Democrats,
with possible contenders like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joseph
Biden, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold and Barack Obama running
not just against each other but against Bush and a Republican Party
that still holds sway in the Senate. Theirs will be a battle not just
for the nomination but for the dominant narrative of the Democratic
Party. They are all critics of Bush and the Iraq war, but there are
nuances within.
Similarly, possible Republican
contenders like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel
and others will battle for the dominant narrative of their party. That
narrative has been controlled by the White House, but, if the Iraq war
continues to go badly and Bush does not respond positively to the Iraq
Study Group's (ISG's)recommendations, Republican aspirants to the presidency
in 2008 may find themselves running not just against each other and
the Democrats but against their own man in the Oval office.
Bush's narrative
And then there's Bush himself,
and questions abound: how will he respond to the ISG's recommendations?
Will he remain committed to seeing through his war to the bitter end,
a democratic Iraq that seems as remote now as ever, or will he look
for a face-saving way out, perhaps through back-channel diplomacy and
a commitment of some kind to withdraw the bulk of US troops? How will
he respond to a Democratic victory in the mid-terms?
Bush's advantage in the battle
of narratives is message cohesion. He can say what he wants when he
wants as president. He still has a determined spin machine. Needless
to say, and quite understandably, he has been aggressive in defense
of the Iraq war. Whatever the various permutations of that defense,
the great thing for him and his supporters about his "stay the
course" slogan is that it all depends on the meaning of "course".
Bush was heavily criticized
recently, by me among others, for denying that there had ever been a
"stay the course" strategy in Iraq. He had used the slogan
many times, after all, and it was convenient and expedient to juxtapose
it with "cut and run" to describe the alleged Democratic plan.
But the new spin on "stay the course" suggests that staying
the course can also mean altering the course when necessary, or that
the latest course is in fact part of a larger course. It's sophistry.
It works.
Cut and declare victory?
As Democrats and Republicans,
more balanced in Congress, battle for control of the political narrative
that will prove to be dominant in 2008, Bush, looking to salvage his
presidency, will continue to try to spin Iraq his way. Instead of "cut
and run," we may get "cut and declare victory" without
the admission of cutting.
Bush could argue, such as
he can argue anything at this point, that the "course" all
along was to go in, take down Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratic
Iraqi government. And he could argue, in grander terms, as is his wont,
that a brutal tyrant has been removed from power, that the Iraqi people
have been liberated, and that democracy is still on the march. Forget
that Iraq is nowhere near the capacity for self-government at this point.
Bush could argue that the Iraqi government is in place and that the
Iraqi security forces are ready.
Under such a narrative, some
American forces would remain, but if Iraq then spirals ever further
into chaos, it will be the Iraqis' fault - and problem. Regardless,
it won't be Bush's problem. He'll be off in retirement and a new president,
Democrat or Republican, will be tasked with determining the course America
pursues from there.
A multi-polar battle
What, then, will the next
two years bring? A multi-polar battle of competing narratives, a war
of words during a period of presidential lame-duckedness and legislative
deadlock. House investigations may prove productive and may even bring
a sense of justice to the gross mismanagment of foreign policy and national
security under Bush.
But - as Harlan Ullman argued
in his October 9 National Interest online piece, "November Nightmares:
Both Parties Abetting an American Decline" - the political climate
will remain more conducive to partisan vitriol than to the pursuit of
reasoned policy for the sake of the common good and to the benefit of
America's interests at home and abroad. Even success by Democratic challengers
at uncovering negligence and malfeasance (both in abundance) and forming
coherent, responsible plans for Iraq could be overwhelmed by the noise
pervading Bush's last two years in office.
In a recent post at The Washington
Note, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation argued that Bush would
not be cornered "into a more rational national security posture"
by either Democratic success in the coming election or the much-anticipated
report by the ISG - due in large part to Vice President Dick Cheney's
dominating presence.
The political narrative can
therefore be contested by Democrats, but the danger is that good ideas
will go nowhere and that bad decisions will continue to be made in a
game that is all about rhetorical domination. At a time when the United
States faces grave threats around the world - jihadist terrorism, destabilization
in East Asia with a nuclear North Korea, the emergence of China as an
economic superpower, a brazen Iran and instability throughout the Middle
East, the rise of a Hugo Chavez-led anti-globalization bloc in Latin
America, and so on - it seems, sadly enough, that the politics will
continue to get in the way of the policy.
What else is new?
Michael J W Stickings
is a policy specialist with the government of Ontario, Canada. His blog
on US and international politics and foreign policy, The Reaction, can
be found at: http://www.thereactionblog.com.
(The views expressed in this
article do not reflect the views of the Government of Ontario.)
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights