A dangerous game of 'chicken' for Democrats
DEMOCRATS and Republicans in Washington are headed toward a showdown. At issue is how to provide an additional $100 billion in supplemental funding to support American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressional Democrats are intent on passing legislation that will include a requirement -- or at least a call -- to bring the troops home next year.
President Bush insists he will accept no such provision, even if it means vetoing legislation that would provide badly needed money for the troops in the field. The American people, he maintains, will fault Democrats if that happens.
In short, the politicians in Washington are playing a high stakes game of chicken -- one whose outcome will change the balance of power and have a profound effect on the 2008 presidential elections.
It's a dynamic I know well. In 1995, I was one of the political consultants who advised President Clinton during the government shutdown, which was brought on by another clash between another assertive Congress and an equally determined president. Then as now, the stakes were high. Had we failed, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have become America's de facto prime minister. Instead, Clinton's presidency was restored.
This time, if Democrats insist on their policy and public sentiment rallies behind them, the GOP collapse on national security issues will be complete. If, however, the public blames Democrats for risking troops in Iraq, congressional Democrats will have committed a political blunder nearly as dramatic as the invasion of Iraq itself. So who should swerve first? The lessons of 1995 suggest that Democrats today are on the verge of a major mistake.
Today, Clinton's 1996 defeat of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas seems preordained. Yet in late 1994, the Clinton presidency was beleaguered. Republicans had won control of both houses of Congress, and it was entirely understandable that in 1995 they would pass a budget that slashed federal spending. What could be more central to the Republican agenda?
But the GOP had misread the polls. Theoretical reductions in federal spending were one thing -- of course the public supported that -- but real cuts in spending on Medicare, education, and the environment were quite another. I advised the president in August 1995 that he couldn't lose by rejecting the GOP approach. But even he had a hard time believing that he would pay no political price for defying a newly elected Congress.
"Poll it again," Clinton said. But the numbers always came back the same. Americans said they would blame the Republicans if the government was shut down. Congress was being overly aggressive and confrontational. Standing firm would shore up Clinton's standing as a strong and principled leader. The key, though, was to project strength, not obstinacy. So Clinton made it clear that he was reasonable, repeatedly inviting Republicans to meet to resolve the impasse. Foolishly, they dismissed these overtures.
Today, history is repeating itself -- with the parties reversed. This time a Republican president is offering talks to recalcitrant Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can justify going to Syria to talk with President Bashar Assad; however, she cannot justify rebuffing an overture to talk to President Bush, as she and Senate majority leader Harry Reid appeared to do last week before hurriedly (and wisely) changing course.
Democrats should not be misled by polls showing that most Americans support the idea of cutting off funding for the war unless benchmarks of success are reached. Of course they do, in the abstract. But Bush's counterargument -- that Democrats are prepared to undermine troops in the field -- will be a powerful one, in part because it is far more concrete than Democrats' complex, poll-tested plan.
In short, Democrats would do well to compromise. If that means accepting a "clean" supplemental funding bill, so be it. While Democrats must continue to criticize the prosecution of the war and the Bush administration's failure to promote political reconciliation, they should also recognize that the public has not yet elected a new commander in chief.
The 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose. Attempting to usurp the powers of the commander of the chief -- or risking the charge that Democrats have abandoned troops in the field -- is one of the few ways the party could jeopardize its seemingly impregnable position. The best chance to end the war is to make sure the next president is a Democrat.
Doug Schoen is the author of "The Power of the Vote." 
