|
|
 |
Iraq Might Fail to Help Democrats
Iraq will become one of the central issues of the 2008 presidential campaign. At first sight, the unpopularity of the long-drawn stay of U.S. troops in Iraq drastically increases the chances of Democrats in the struggle for the White House: all candidates of that party speak for pulling troops out of Iraq. However, it is not as simple as that.
First, it is hard for Democrats to put on white peacekeepers’ garments in the situation when some members of the party in the Congress actually supported the Iraq war, and without setting any conditions to the Republican administration. In fact, the Democratic Party is partially responsible for the Iraq campaign, although its share of responsibility is less than that of George Bush.
Second, the situation in Iraq is not so critical as to make the majority of Americans support leaving that country at all costs. Discrediting hawks-neoconservatives does not necessarily mean that the U.S. society would support doves-peacekeepers. Let us recall the mistake made by Democrats in 1972, when in the conditions of the Vietnam syndrome, the party moved to the left too much, appointing pacifist Senator McGovern as the presidential candidate. The result was catastrophic: 37.5 percent of votes. The Americans, even with the psychological shock caused by a worse war than the Iraqi one, did not believe that a pacifist candidate would be able to safeguard their country’s national security. No wonder that Hillary Clinton, the current leader of the pre-election race among Democrats, is distancing herself from the excessively radical criticism of George Bush security policy.
A candidate with toughest criticism of Bush campaign in Iraq will not win the race. Neither will a candidate who will come up with the most rational plan of pulling U.S. out of Iraq. The winner will be that candidate who will persuade the Americans that he/she is the most patriotic, reliable, and professional one to leave Iraq without disgrace.
Let us remember the Algerian crisis in France in 1950s: Communists criticized the unpopular colonial war more than others. Yet, it was Charles de Gaulle who got the dividends from the inability of several governments of the Fourth Republic to solve the issue. The French considered him to be a person capable of strong decisions. At the same time, the solution for a crisis does not play the decisive role. The society should believe in the leader. De Gaulle’s right-wing critics failed to discredit his policy, when they accused him of betraying the national interests. Meanwhile, the attempts of any other French politician to implement the same plan would be equal to a political suicide.
The outcome of the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. depends on whether the voters will see De Gaulle features in the Democratic critics of the Iraq war. If it does not happen, the White House will remain under the control of Republicans, who have two patriotic candidates: September 11th hero Giuliani, and Vietnam veteran McCain.
Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of the Political Technologies Center
All the Article in Russian as of June 05, 2007
|
|
|
