If Everyone Is Looking at the Economy, Watch Foreign Policy

By Stuart Rothenberg

It was more than 10 months ago (Jan. 6, It May Not Be the Economy, Stupid, in the End) that I wrote in this space that, despite the nation’s focus on the economy and multiple assessments that Barack Obama’s presidency would depend on his actions on the economy during the first 100 days, the president’s ultimate standing might turn on international issues.

I continue to believe that is the case.

Given the primacy of domestic issues to the public, particularly the undeniable importance of unemployment, health care and spending issues, that may seem an unwise guess. But if there are any issues that can rival, or in fact trump, kitchen-table concerns, one of them surely is national security.

While his Afghanistan policy has generated some controversy, foreign policy remains Obama’s strength.

The public’s evaluation of his overall job performance has slipped since the early days of his presidency, when his job approval was artificially high, but his approval still stands generally in the low 50s, certainly a decent number considering the administration’s level of activity and the problems still facing the country.

While his job approval on domestic issues such as health care and the federal budget deficit has slipped noticeably — with more adults saying they disapprove of the president’s performance in those two areas than those who approve — Obama’s numbers on international issues and fighting terrorism have remained stronger. For example, 6 in 10 Americans said they approve of his handling of international issues.

But foreign policy remains fraught with danger for the White House.

While the president has more latitude to create policy in the international arena, he is dealing with an array of state and nonstate actors who don’t necessarily have America’s interests at heart. For a White House that enjoys being proactive and staying on message, foreign policy can be frustratingly reactive.

Figuring out how Blue Dogs and liberals can sign onto the same health care or climate change bills is difficult, but it’s easier than having to worry about whether Russia and China are serious about ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, how close the government of Iran is to acquiring nuclear weapons or deciding whether to put more troops into Afghanistan.

For all the problems that Obama has on Capitol Hill with moderate Democrats who are trying to demonstrate their independence from the administration and from Republicans who have a very different vision of health care reform and economic policy — and who score political points by discrediting the president’s agenda and defeating his efforts — at least those domestic players (and adversaries) have America’s best interests at heart.

True, some partisan crackpots treat Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) or South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) as traitors because they don’t always agree with their party’s leaders, but there should be little doubt about their allegiance.

But nobody in their right mind thinks that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will make decisions on the basis of what the United States wants or needs.

Since foreign policy remains one of Obama’s assets to date, he could create dramatic problems for himself when forced to make difficult decisions involving U.S. foreign policy.

Afghanistan is the most obvious problem, and a perfectly reasonable decision in late November could look like a horrible one six months later.

Even before his decision about how to respond to calls for additional troops, Obama’s disapproval on his handling of the war in Afghanistan (48 percent) is higher than his approval (45 percent). Those are worrisome numbers given that his decision on future troop levels could well anger those on the right and the left.

But beyond Afghanistan, Iran looks to become a nightmare for Obama unless his current strategy of encouraging Iran to give up his nuclear program bears fruit. And for many Americans, only the most naive of presidents would truly believe that international pressure on Iran would succeed in persuading the current government to “walk through the door” that the president has said the international community has opened.

Like everything else, foreign policy is about the results, and it is easy to see the president looking too weak to moderates and conservatives, as well as to pro-Israel liberals, if he fails to act decisively on Iran, and looking too hawkish to anti-war liberals if he supports military measures aimed at damaging Iran’s nuclear capability.

Right now, Obama represents restraint and multilateralism in foreign policy. But as George W. Bush found out, sometimes strengths turn into weakness during the four years of a presidency.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Looking for the ‘Other’ 30 Percent of American Voters at a Concert

By Stuart Rothenberg

“Wish I Didn’t Know Now” — Toby Keith song (1994)

While most people spent Saturday evening reading or watching television at home, chilling out at the movies or partying with friends, Athanasios Genos (yes, that’s his real name) was working.

Marine Cpl. Genos wasn’t dodging bullets on combat duty, though it’s true that he has been in Fallujah, Iraq. Instead he spent his most recent Saturday evening in Bristow, Va., about 35 miles southwest of the nation’s capital, manning a Marines recruiting table at a Toby Keith concert.

Keith, one of the brightest of stars in the world of country music, drew more than 20,000 fans to the Nissan Pavilion, and Genos, a public affairs specialist in the Marines, joined a handful of other Marines posted just inside the venue’s gate as thousands of music fans poured in.

The placement of the Marines’ recruiting tent — which included a pull-up bar for those wanting to test their strength and a few tables on which sign-up sheets sat for those seeking information about joining the Marines — surely tells you something about the crowd.

While I didn’t take a survey of attendees, it was pretty clear that I was surrounded by the “Other America,” the 30 percent of Americans who still say they approve of the job that President Bush is doing.

No, I saw not a single T-shirt supporting the president — or any of the Republican presidential candidates, for that matter. In this political environment, even Bush’s supporters tend to keep quiet, more than a bit disappointed by the war and by his administration’s overall performance. The closest thing I saw to a liberal message at the event was a Ben & Jerry’s “Lick Global Warming Campaign” ad on the giant video screens that flanked the stage.

What was more important, I suspect, is that I didn’t see a single T-shirt that was critical of the president, Vice President Cheney or the war. (I know what you are thinking: Maybe folks at these concerts are too busy wearing T-shirts about getting drunk or with pictures of semi-naked women on them to bother with politics.)

I saw plenty of flags — Confederate and American — in the parking lot as tailgaters, most of whom looked like college kids more interested in partying than making a political statement, warmed up for the event. And when, throughout the show, Keith mentioned his multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, saluted a number of uniformed military in the audience or sang his signature songs “American Soldier” and “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),” the crowd went nuts.

Yes, many in this audience were members of the “Silent Minority,” the 30 percent of America that doesn’t always agree with Bush but isn’t calling for his political lynching.

But do people, even these people, really stop at the Marines’ recruiting tent during county music concerts? Don’t they know that joining the Marines now means heading to Iraq?

“If people are interested in the Marines, they already know that we are the fighting force. We are here to recruit, and if you sign up, you are going to be defending the USA,” Genos told me in a straightforward way. He went on to estimate that at least 100 or 200 people fill out information sheets at these concerts. And indeed, as I watched for a moment or two, a couple of young men stopped to fill out forms.

Keith’s show ended with a symphony of red, white and blue lights, fireworks and American flags waving on the video screens. The crowd was delirious.

I don’t know if most of those in attendance took a political message from the event, other than the raw patriotism that the entertainer is famous for offering. But I do imagine that some people, particularly those who dismiss country music (both for its lyrics, music and assumed politics), might be surprised to know that Keith has been a registered Democrat for years, according to an October 2004 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

While he voted for Bush and is openly critical of his own party’s liberalism, Keith turned down a request to perform at the 2004 Republican National Convention and, according to a January 2007 article in Newsday, he voted twice for former President Bill Clinton. He also says that he doesn’t support the war and “never did.”

But Keith, who joined with veteran singer Willie Nelson, hardly a conservative icon, in 2002 to record “Beer for My Horses,” has been critical of celebrities who urge their fans to back certain candidates.

One of Keith’s big early hits included the lyrics, “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” While those words referred to his ex’s behavior, for many Americans, they easily could have referred to Bush’s Iraq policy. But for the vast majority of those attending Keith’s concert, patriotism certainly appears to trump policy.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 19, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Cranky Grass-Roots Democrats Send a Message to Capitol Hill

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democratic insiders agree that their party rank and file’s reaction to the passage of the supplemental appropriations bill, which was signed by President Bush a few weeks ago and included money to fund the Iraq War for three more months, was one of anger and frustration.

Possibly more importantly, they also now privately acknowledge that some small-dollar contributors turned away from party fundraising appeals after the bill passed and was signed by the president.

“We saw some hit to online donations,” one knowledgeable Democrat told me recently, adding quickly that contributions already have started to bounce back.

But while party leaders are never happy to hear that Congress’ reputation is slipping — and the drop in Congressional approval a couple of weeks ago almost certainly was because of Democrats expressing dissatisfaction — or that angry base voters have closed up their checkbooks, even temporarily, Democratic House and Senate leaders don’t yet have much reason to fear a grass-roots revolt.

Congressional Democrats apparently were surprised by the base’s reaction to the bill’s passage. They shouldn’t have been. Have they been living under a rock?

We’ve seen grass-roots Democratic anger for the past few years directed at the White House, and the animosity and invective aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) during his bid for renomination and re-election should have warned House and Senate Democrats that even they are not immune to attacks from left-of-center bloggers who see any cooperation with the White House on Iraq as perfidy.

Increasingly, the Democratic left is acting much the way the Republican right has acted for decades, measuring Capitol Hill behavior against a standard of ideological purity that treats pragmatists as traitors and those who compromise as worse than the enemy.

These voices have always been around, mind you. It is just that they now have a megaphone with the Internet, much as angry conservatives did when talk radio burst on the scene more than a decade ago.

“It makes no sense for our friends in the grass-roots community to hold us responsible when it’s the president’s party that makes change [in Iraq policy] impossible,” one frustrated Democratic Member of Congress said to me recently.

“Our goal,” said the Member, “is still to turn the corner on Iraq. We haven’t changed our position” just because the appropriations bill passed.

Maybe Democratic leaders could have done a better job preparing angry party activists for the passage of the spending bill, possibly sparing Hill Democrats the nasty e-mails and angry comments on liberal blogs, but I doubt it. Democrats have spent so many months cranking up the volume on Iraq — making it a major issue in the 2006 elections and since then increasing their attacks on the president and his policies — that it would have been very difficult to persuade grass-roots anti-war activists to accept a deal with the White House that funded the war for even another week.

Given the bigger picture, it really doesn’t matter that many grass-roots Democrats were very frustrated and angry by Hill Democrats’ behavior (which probably only angers them more).

As we have already learned, Congressional Democrats are planning to take more bites out of the Iraq War apple over the next few months, either in stand-alone bills or as amendments to appropriations bills. A de-authorization vote, for example, seems likely.

Even though it is inevitable that those Democratic initiatives will be blocked by Republicans in the Senate, or vetoed by the president (if any get to his desk), Hill Democrats will be able to crow about their efforts to end the war and blame Bush for the daily doses of bad news from Iraq. That should mollify Democratic confrontationalists, redirecting attention back toward the Republicans and calming the mood of the now-angry crowd on stage left toward Democrats.

The next question for Congressional Democrats is what to do in September, when the president will need Congress to commit additional spending for the war. But their choices depend on the various reports about the so-called surge that are due then and on Republican decisions on the war. If the recent public statements of Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) are any indication, Democrats will have plenty of company when they try to tighten the noose on the president’s Iraq policy near the end of the summer.

Increasingly, the Democratic left resembles the Republican right. That’s likely to be a long-term problem for Democrats, but it isn’t a terribly significant one between now and November 2008.

But as Democrats grow confident about next year, and especially if they win the White House and increase their majorities in both chambers of Congress in 2008, you can expect the party’s liberal wing to become more confrontational against party moderates and pragmatists. Democrats will go after Democrats who stray from the party and ideological line, much as social and anti-tax conservatives have tried to cleanse the GOP of incumbents who fail to meet their litmus tests.

The writing is already on the wall.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 2, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Democratic Leaders on Capitol Hill Are Still Playing Iraq Just Right

By Stuart Rothenberg

Now that the dust has settled on the Congressional vote on the supplemental appropriations bill and on the ruckus that anti-war opponents of the bill kicked up, it’s time to assess the political implications.

First, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played the issue like a Stradivarius. They forced a vote on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, putting Republicans on record supporting the status quo and President Bush, but allowed a subsequent vote to “fund the troops.” That gave their own Members from swing districts the opportunity to demonstrate their support for the military.

From a purely political point of view, Democrats had their cake and ate it too. Yes, the war is unpopular, and opposing it is a no-brainer. But the one thing Democrats need to avoid is looking like themselves during the 1970s and 1980s — weak and unwilling to support America’s men and women in uniform. Yes, they’ve spent the past few years speaking the right words on national security and the armed forces, but if they had refused to pass a spending bill, they would have at the very least opened themselves to attack from the GOP.

So, in ignoring the demands of the party’s left, Congressional leaders have kept their party right where they want it — against the war but also against terrorists and for the troops.

Second, some Democrats are openly unhappy that Congress cooperated with the president. Presidential hopeful John Edwards argued that Congressional Democrats should pass the same deadline bill again and again until Bush signed it, and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced that she will no longer be the face of the anti-war movement and was distressed that “Democrats caved in to George Bush.”

While a bit more confrontation with the president probably wouldn’t have gotten Congressional Democrats into trouble and would have pleased the party’s left, the Democratic House and Senate leaders wisely played things safe by allowing a bill to pass that Bush could sign.

Why take a chance alienating swing voters when the party already made its point by sending the president a deadline bill that he vetoed?

Anti-war critics of the Democratic Congressional leadership have nowhere else to go, both now and in November 2008.

Liberal bloggers apparently are angry with Democratic Rep. Mark Udall’s vote for the supplemental, but they’ll support him in next year’s open-seat Senate race in Colorado. Similarly, the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be more appealing to anti-war liberals than the Republican nominee will be, so the Democratic Party risks very little, at least at this point, in disappointing its most ideological, confrontational element.

Third, the vote on the supplemental was far more dangerous for the party’s presidential hopefuls than for the Democrats’ Members of Congress.

House and Senate Democrats are able to deal with Bush’s war, since they have no commander in chief authority and are not viewed by most Americans as the initiators of U.S. foreign policy. The Congressional opposition can score political points merely by complaining about the president’s policies and demanding a change.

Indeed, that’s how the Democrats won their majorities in 2006. The party had no unified agenda on Iraq — the Democratic call for a deadline didn’t spread across the party until after November’s results — and it gained control of both chambers by making the election a referendum on the president and his Iraq policy.

But presidential elections are different. They are to a much greater extent a choice between leaders and visions. Past performance, of course, is a factor, and were Bush running for re-election, the 2008 election would be a referendum on him, as 1992 was a referendum on his father and 1980 was a referendum on then-President Jimmy Carter’s leadership.

Even if voters are unhappy with a failed foreign policy, they are likely to want a president who is perceived as strong and tough when it comes to foreign policy. Of course, that doesn’t mean they will want a unilateralist. Or that they won’t vote for someone who calls for more international cooperation. But they won’t vote for someone who isn’t viewed as willing to fight for U.S. interests.

For Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), both of whom voted against the bill that eventually passed, the fight over the supplemental was (and is likely to return again as) a problem. Clinton spent a long time trying to establish her international credentials for toughness, and her gender probably is an added burden as she tries to fill the commander in chief role. Still, Americans apparently view her as personally tough, which makes it easier for her to convince voters that she’d aggressively defend American interests as president.

Obama has a similar problem, in part because of his lack of international experience. Moreover, his general message of hope and unity doesn’t inevitably lead voters to see him as tough internationally and able to protect Americans from terrorists.

Edwards’ strong position against the war, combined with his recent remarks questioning the phrase “war against terror,” put him in a precarious position as he campaigns for the nation’s top job. He talks angrily about the war, but he still lacks a great deal of international experience. While voters may find him appealing as a leader against Bush’s Iraq policy, the former North Carolina senator may not be nearly as convincing as commander in chief.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 7, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

For Bush, Sticking With His Iraq Policy Now Is the Only Choice

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democrats and even more than a few Republicans seem increasingly frustrated that President Bush hasn’t been persuaded by their arguments or by the midterm election results to change policy in Iraq. They shouldn’t be. The president has little alternative but to dig in, given both his view of the conflict and how history may judge his presidency.

History has a way of turning failed presidencies into well-regarded ex-presidents. Richard Nixon left office in disgrace but came to be viewed as an authority on international and security issues after his resignation. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was widely seen as disastrous, and voters denied him a second term, yet he is now treated as an authority on a range of domestic and international issues and often evaluates Bush’s performance.

Bush’s chances of having his reputation improve years or even decades after he leaves office almost certainly depends on what ultimately happens in Iraq. If things turn out surprisingly well, historians may actually look back and conclude that Bush did the right thing by ignoring public opinion and Democratic critics.

If, on the other hand, Iraq experiences years of civil strife and Iran fills the region’s vacuum, spreading its venom throughout the Middle East and giving sanctuary to terrorism, Bush will be judged as the person most responsible for that outcome.

Given that, and given the way Bush now views the situation in Iraq and the costs of failure, he cannot possibly agree to remove U.S. forces as quickly as his critics would like. Withdrawal would guarantee “defeat,” as the president sees it, thereby establishing the error of his policy and the failure of his administration.

If the president did what his critics (as well as some of his friends within the GOP) want, his reputation would be permanently set. His only legacy would be the mess in Iraq and the United States’ failures. Even if things improved in the region 10 years down the road, Bush would get no credit for it.

And let’s be entirely clear: Bush wouldn’t get any credit for pulling troops out at this point. Nobody really thinks the president’s overall reputation would improve after being forced, kicking and screaming, to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, do they?

If all of this is even close to correct, it suggests that opponents of current U.S. policy won’t have an effect on Bush administration policy as long as they are merely demanding an exit or talking about U.S. sacrifice.

The only way to influence policy is to demonstrate to Bush that his long-term goal of a peaceful, stable and free Iraq — which would be good both for the Middle East and for his historical reputation — can be achieved only if Republicans hold onto the White House, and that continued Republican control of the White House is impossible, absolutely impossible, without some withdrawal of U.S. forces within the next few months.

This argument isn’t about Republicans regaining the House or avoiding a bloodbath in next year’s Congressional elections. I’m pretty certain the president would prefer Republicans to hold their own in the 2008 House and Senate elections, but if the president sees the choice as between stopping terrorism and re-electing Ohio Rep. Ralph Regula (R) to his House seat, I’m pretty sure we all know which Bush would choose.

If the president was to conclude that a Democratic victory in 2008, including the presidency, would assure a more abrupt exit from Iraq than he thinks is wise — the kind of exit, to the president’s thinking, that would doom Iraq and give “victory” to radicals — then he might see holding the White House in 2008 as part of the Iraq War and the larger war against terror.

The key for critics of Bush’s Iraq policy — at least those who are more interested in changing policy than in scoring political points by beating up on a president who has already demonstrated that he doesn’t much care how many and how often his critics beat up on him — is to get the president to believe that his ultimate goal depends on electing a Republican to succeed him and to believe that a significant change in policy can help accomplish that.

Regardless of how you feel about the president’s Iraq policy, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the president isn’t easily persuaded to change his course. He has his entire presidency and his historical reputation invested in Iraq and regards that war as a fight against terror and for peace. Given that, the loss of a few more House or Senate seats and even the loss of the White House aren’t all that important.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 21, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Are Democrats Kidding that Iraq Vote Was 'Bipartisan?'

By Stuart Rothenberg

Moments after the House voted against President Bush's additional deployment of troops to Iraq - the so-called surge, if you are for it or trying to be neutral, or the so-called escalation, if you are opposed to it - House Democrats sent out a flurry of e-mails crowing about the "bipartisan" support for it.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel's release was titled, "Emanuel Statement on Bipartisan Approval of Iraq Resolution," while House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's was headlined an only slightly different, "Bipartisan Majority in U.S. House Votes Against the President's Plan to Escalate the War in Iraq."

On the House floor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, staying true to her party's talking points, also referred to the resolution as "bipartisan."

In fact, support for the Iraq resolution was bipartisan only in the technical sense that the vote on the resolution was not completely along party lines. But it was awfully close to that, and referring to the final vote as bipartisan has more to do with Democratic strategy and nervousness than reality.

Only 17 Republicans - or 8.4% of GOP House members - joined 225 Democrats in voting for the resolution, while over 90% of Republicans opposed passage of the resolution. Republicans constituted just 7% of the 242 House members who supported the resolution. Only two House Democrats voted with 185 Republicans against the resolution.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the resolution without any GOP support, and given national polls showing widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush policy, just 17 Republican votes for the resolution is stunningly small, and little or no indication of a bipartisan consensus.

Clearly, the vote on the resolution was very much partisan, though with a handful of defections. We can argue over what would constitute a truly bipartisan vote, but 92% of Republicans voting against something and 99% of Democrats voting for it surely doesn't come close to passing the threshold. By insisting, whether in a press release, in statements on the floor or in interviews after the fact, that the vote was bipartisan, Democratic leaders look silly.

But if the vote was overwhelmingly partisan, why don't Democrats just say so? What's the big deal?

The likely answer is that Democrats are trying so hard to avoid allowing Republicans to label their criticism as merely partisan that they won't even acknowledge the obvious. Instead, they are looking for any opportunity to portray their opposition to the President's policies as part of the nation's dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy.

While that's understandable - one of the few ways Democrats could screw up during the next year and a half would be to appear to be basing their opposition on possible political gain and a petty desire to punish Bush politically - there is no indication that Democrats have been too aggressive in criticizing the President or his policies so far.

In fact, a partisan division over the war probably would help Democrats by further damaging the Republicans between now and next year's Presidential election. After all, if it isn't merely President Bush, but also his entire party, that supports the war and ignores public opinion, Democrats would seem to benefit.

Obviously there are a handful of high profile Republicans who have opposed the Bush policy in Iraq for a considerable time - most notably Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in the Senate and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina in the House - and a number of GOP members of Congress have over the past couple of months sounded increasingly critical of Bush policies.

But the House vote demonstrates that Republicans still have not left the President's ship, even though it clearly seems to be sinking, and Democrats ought not be so wedded to their talking points' emphasis on bipartisan opposition to the war that they refer to a "bipartisan resolution" that clearly was nothing of the sort.

This article first appeared on RealClearPolitics on February 20, 2007.

Say What? VoteVets Ad

By Stuart Rothenberg

If supporters of President George W. Bush's policy of sending another 20,000 troops to Iraq had aired a television ad that argued that opposing the new Bush policy means "you don't support the troops," opponents of the President would have rightly gone bananas.

It's not the troops that they oppose, they would insist indignantly, it's the Bush policy, which so far has failed to accomplish its objectives and will result in additional casualties and costs with too little assurance of victory.

And yet, those same folks don't seem to mind paying for a VoteVets.org TV spot that says people who support Bush's policy "don't support the troops."

Oh well, given the high emotion on both sides and the general tendency of political activists of both liberal and conservative stripe to shun civility and reason, it's no wonder that opponents of the President's policy didn't merely cross the line; they obliterated it.

Let's be entirely clear: You can support the troops in the field and at the same time either support the President's policy or oppose the President's policy. Don't take my word for it. It's what Democratic politicians who oppose the Bush Iraq policy have been saying for months. Someone needs to tell the folks over at VoteVets.org that their ad is just plain wrong and that spending a lot of money to put it on TV doesn't change that.

I just did.