It's No Longer 1968 For Dems

In May 2004, as the presidential campaign was beginning to gather steam, an unnamed senior Bush administration official was asked to comment on the dilemma John F. Kerry faced in criticizing the handling of the war in Iraq. His response: “It’s never stopped being 1968” for Democrats.

A more telling description of Democratic vulnerability on national security issues is difficult to imagine. The year 1968 is shorthand for the 40-year political caricature of Democrats as “soft” and “weak” on military affairs. In the late ’60s, Democrats were “dirty hippies”; in the ’70s, they were peacenik McGovernites; in 1984, they were “blame America firsters”; in recent years, they have been “cut and runners.” The labels may have changed, but the argument has not: Republicans are tough, Democrats are not.

But increasingly, the tide is shifting, as Democrats are demonstrating a new assertiveness on a host of national security issues from Iraq to fighting terrorism. What was once the Democratic Party’s Achilles’ heel is fast becoming a political advantage.

Throughout American political history, stereotypes have defined the two parties. In the late 19th century, Democrats were the party of Southern secession, and rare was the Republican politician who failed to “wave the bloody shirt” of Democratic rebellion.

In the ’30s, the GOP was the party of Herbert Hoover and “economic royalists” and was the enemy of the working man. In the ’70s and ’80s, spurred by the white backlash and the growing conservatism of American politics, Democrats were tarred as the party of Big Government, “tax and spend” policies and “coddling criminals.”

While Bill Clinton neutralized these political caricatures in the ’90s, the image of Democratic foreign policy weakness has never faded. Lame attempts at political artifice (see Michael Dukakis in the tank) have served only to strengthen the toxic image. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, things got even worse, as Democrats fell over themselves to seem as tough as Republicans on national security. It was to no avail; in both the 2002 and 2004 elections, the GOP bested the Democrats on national security.

However, as the American people have turned against the Iraq war, the tide has begun to shift in dramatic ways. The first shot was fired during the 2006 congressional election, a race in which the Iraq war was the No. 1 issue and Democrats refused to run away from their anti-war position. (Indeed, many campaigned on a timetable for withdrawal steeper than the one being advocated by Obama and Clinton.) President Bush trotted out the usual anti-Democratic epithets accusing “the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman” of becoming “the party of cut and run.”

But the voters overwhelmingly sided with the Democrats, in large measure because they judged the party better able to handle the situation in Iraq. This represented a seismic shift in American politics: For the first time in more than two generations, a foreign policy issue dominated a major American election, and Democrats were victorious.

However, Democrats did not follow up their advantage, failing to force the White House to change course. In August 2007, when the president pushed a bill rubberstamping the administration’s position on warrantless wiretapping, Democrats wilted. Many would argue that this was simply smart politics and the best way to avoid giving Republicans a campaign issue for 2008. This is true, but it was also reflective of a sense among many congressional Democrats that they simply could not compete with Republicans on the issue of national security.

Yet in the past few months, Democrats have begun to adopt the lessons of 2006. The most glaring example is Iraq, regarding which Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have not backed off their calls for troop withdrawal.

Both have staked out middle-of-the-road arguments, refusing to play too directly to the anti-war elements of the party in calling for immediate withdrawal or to moderate their positions in the face of attacks by John McCain that the party is waving the white flag of surrender to Al Qaeda. The GOP broadsides are hardly denting the Democrats -- by 52 percent to 35 percent, voters believe that Democrats will do a better job resolving the situation in Iraq.

Even more startling was the recent effort by House Democrats to stymie the White House on the issue of warrantless wiretapping. Even as the president intimated that some Democrats weren’t interested in “protecting America,” the Democrats stood their ground, leading The New York Times to argue that the wiretapping scuffle was “one of the few times when Democrats have been willing to buck up against the White House on a national security issue.”

Come election time, one can expect “cut and run” attacks on Democrats to escalate, but this might be the first presidential campaign since the ’60s in which national security could be a net plus for Democrats.

With the electorate favoring Democrats on a host of domestic issues, the political risks for Republicans are significant. If Democrats can go into 2008 with the confidence to talk about foreign policy and national security issues -- and without being afraid of GOP counterattacks -- we might truly be on the verge of a long-term political realignment.