MIDTERM ELECTIONS are fast approaching and the Bush administration's plans for war have Democrats on the defensive. With talk of war dominating news coverage and public debate, Democratic candidates have been unable to draw attention to their own issues and find themselves in the difficult position of having to support war or be cast as unpatriotic appeasers of terrorism. Although this situation does not bode well for the Democrats' chances on Nov. 5, it is largely a consequence of their own inaction. If the Democrats are ever to challenge the administration and focus attention on their own priorities, they must be more assertive in defining their positions and creating national debate on issues such as Iraq.
If a confrontation with Iraq seems inevitable and opposition useless, it is primarily because the administration has been allowed to dominate the national discourse ever since it began calling for war. For months, President George W. Bush and his advisers have made daily pronouncements of their intention to topple the Iraqi regime by force, which have gone largely unanswered by Democrats, despite the crucial (and Constitutional) role Congress has to play in the process. The administration has called for war so loudly, so often and with so little opposition that many Americans are now convinced that war is inevitable and that anyone who opposes it is unacceptably soft on terrorism.
This air of inevitability culminated in last week's anticlimactic passage of Congressional resolutions authorizing the president to unilaterally attack Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Though the resolution effectively ended Congress' role in resolving the Iraqi threat, only 22 Senate Democrats opposed it; their leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD), was not among them.
The failure of the Democratic leadership to create a strong alternative to the administration's pro-war position has left Democratic legislators and candidates in a doubly bad position. Because war now seems inevitable, they cannot oppose it without appearing unpatriotic and they cannot talk about other issues because war has so monopolized the nation's attention. Because the only solid, popular position is the president's, Democrats must choose between meekly supporting war or opposing war and appearing irresolute.
But if the Democrats' failure to create a genuine national debate on Iraq is bad for their own election hopes, it is worse for the nation as a whole. In remarks after the passage of the Senate resolution, Daschle said that he supported the president because "it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment" ("Congress Passes Iraq Resolution," The Washington Post, Oct. 11). But speaking with one voice is far less important than speaking with the right voice and that voice will not be found unless the Democrats are willing to engage the administration and the nation in a serious debate on the Iraqi problem. The administration may be correct in its assessment of the Iraqi threat, but the nation should not commit itself to war on the president's will alone.
In the early days of the administration's war talk, the Democrats should have said loudly and often that Congress has the sole Constitutional authority to declare war and that they would neither support such a declaration nor allow war to dominate the national discourse until the president made a more compelling case for confronting Iraq. Had they done this, Democratic leaders could have created a strong position around which to rally their supporters, forced the administration to make its case more clearly and created a genuine national dialogue about war. Their failure to do this has left Americans with only one voice to hear and Democrats with one voice they must support.
The administration has dominated the Iraq debate in the same fashion it has dominated others and the Democratic leadership must devise a more effective means of response. The administration has often been able to get its way by taking extreme positions and making its case so loudly and so often as to shift the terms of an entire debate toward its goals. The President perfected this tactic in last year's tax cut debate and is now applying it to Iraq. By focusing so relentlessly on the conflict with Iraq, the administration has again set the terms of the debate, shifting national and international expectations from complacency to confrontation and possibly to war.
If America is to have real, productive dialogue on such important issues as Iraq, the Democratic leadership must be more assertive in defining strong opposing positions that Americans can support. Until the Democrats can match the administration's vigor in promoting their viewpoints, they cannot take an active role in determining American policy on Iraq. They will remain passive observers and reluctant supporters in a debate controlled by the administration.
(Alec Solotorovsky's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
