America votes and the spin
masters wobble
By Michael J W Stickings
Editor's note: At the time of going to press, the Democrats had captured
227 seats in the House of Representatives, the Republicans had 191 and 17 were
undecided, thus giving control to the Democrats. The Senate race was tied at
49-49, with two results 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.)
