US Politics: the elections, and Hillary report card

1. Elections Aren't about Issues -- by Paul Waldman

It must seem like déjà vu all over again to Democrats. There's an unpopular war, an unpopular president, and Republicans calling them weak, terrorist-loving troop-haters as an election approaches.

There is little evidence that the Republican attack is working so far. But if history is any guide, at least some Democrats will soon be desperately backpedaling, trying to figure out whether there is a vote they can cast or a position they can take that will make them look ``strong."

This issue goes to a fundamental question for Democrats, one that is about more than just whether they can win this year. If they want to build long-term political success, they need to understand what the Republicans have been doing right, so they can fix what they've been doing wrong.

If there's one thing Republicans have understood and Democrats haven't, it is that politics is not about issues. Politics is about identity. The candidates and parties that win are not those aligning their positions most precisely with a majority of the electorate. The winners are those who form a positive image in the public mind of who they are (and a negative image of who their opponents are). Issues are a vehicle to create that identity, one that combines with symbolism and narrative to shape what the public thinks about when they think about Democrats and Republicans.

Think about what happens in campaign after campaign. The Democrat comes before the public and says, ``If you read my 10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it point by point." The Republican then comes before the public, points to the Democrat, and says, ``That guy is a weak, elitist liberal who hates you and everything you stand for. I'm one of you and he's not." And guess who wins.

After it's all over, Democrats wonder why they lost, when a majority of the public favors nearly all the items on their agenda. Americans want a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, strong environmental protections, universal healthcare, and a tax policy that isn't tilted toward the wealthy, to name a few. But voters don't read policy papers, and they don't make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands. That's why Republican campaigns operate on a different level: Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is strong, and who is weak? These questions transcend issues, which is why Republicans -- who know they are at a disadvantage on the issues -- spend so much time talking about them.

It's the last question, that of strength and weakness, that vexes Democrats in election after election. While it is usually played out in the arena of national security, it is only partly about foreign affairs and defense policy. The answer to the Democrats' strength problem is to understand that here, as in all areas of politics, the key is identity.

To see how Democrats have misunderstood the question of strength, we can examine Iraq -- likely to be the most prominent issue in the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential primaries and general election. It seems safe to assume that there were some Democrats who thought the Iraq war was a bad idea, but voted for it anyway out of fear that if they didn't, they would be called weak.

Three years later, with most Americans now believing the war was a mistake, do the Democrats who voted for the war look strong? Hardly. They look like pushovers who didn't have the guts to stand up to President Bush when it mattered most.

Yet today there are still some Democrats in Washington who believe their problem on national security can be solved by adopting positions as close as possible to those of the Republicans.

But strength doesn't flow from a policy proposal, and it can't be demonstrated with a hawkish vote. The public will be convinced that Democrats are strong when they stand up for their beliefs, take political risks, and don't run scared every time they get attacked by Republicans. Think about it this way: Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, and no one ever called him weak.

In short, it isn't about voting the way you think the public wants you to vote, and it isn't about your 10-point plan. It's about who you are. That's just one lesson Democrats need to learn from Republicans.

(Paul Waldman is the author of ``Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.")


2. Report Card from NY Times on Hillary as NY Senator
A Senate Primary in New York (NY Times editorial)

The Democratic primary for senator in New York, which pits Hillary Clinton against an antiwar candidate, Jonathan Tasini, is not shaping up as a nail-biter. Mrs. Clinton has one of the best-known names on the planet, far more campaign money than she needs and an enormous lead in the polls. Mr. Tasini has a lot of spunk. What attention the race has been getting is due mainly to the proximity of Connecticut. If Democrats turned on Senator Joseph Lieberman because of his support for the war in Iraq, why shouldn’t they do the same to Mrs. Clinton, who also has refused to express regret for her vote to authorize the invasion?

This page recommended voting for Ned Lamont over Mr. Lieberman in the primary. Today — not to prolong the suspense — we’re endorsing Mrs. Clinton. It seems like an excellent time to discuss her record on the war.

•

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Lieberman have behaved very differently on the Iraq issue from the beginning. In 2002, Mr. Lieberman stood next to President Bush in the Rose Garden when he announced an agreement on a resolution to authorize use of force. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, urged that the resolution be regarded not as a go-ahead to invade, but as leverage in negotiations with the United Nations. She argued in the Senate debate that the president should work to get strong United Nations backing for a demand that Saddam Hussein allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. If that failed, she said, the United States’ effort would still win it international support for an invasion later.

She was certainly not a dove. Her husband’s administration was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Mrs. Clinton clearly believed Iraq was a grave threat to international peace. But as the conflict went on, she became increasingly critical of the way it was being conducted. Mr. Lieberman not only defended it, he also chastised other Democrats for criticizing the president during a time of war. A few months ago, Mrs. Clinton joined most Senate Democrats in supporting a resolution that called for American forces to begin leaving Iraq this year, without setting a specific deadline for withdrawal. Mr. Lieberman opposed the resolution and spoke out against it in the Senate.

Mr. Lieberman’s actions, it seemed to us, made it easier for the Bush administration to continue pursuing what was obviously becoming a hopeless strategy. Mrs. Clinton was very different. She has performed the proper function of a senator from the minority party — holding the majority accountable.

All that said, she has hardly been a profile in courage. Almost every move Mrs. Clinton has made regarding Iraq reflected her desire to find — or create — a center position on every issue. The resolution she endorsed was extremely vague, more of a potential political embarrassment to the administration than a restriction on the military. Her speech in 2002 was classic triangulation, in which she posed two clear opposing positions and then placed herself in between. And her clash with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld last month, while dramatic, was late in the game, and an obvious attempt to make it clear to the restive antiwar voters that she was not an appropriate target.

•

Mrs. Clinton’s biggest flaw is her unwillingness to risk political capital for principle. That is not to say that she lacks principles, but whenever her moral convictions become politically inexpedient, she will struggle to find a way to cloak them in vague rhetoric or deflect attention with a compromise that makes the danger go away.

All that is an issue of leadership, and it will be grist for discussion if she decides to run for president in 2008. Right now we are talking about a Senate race, and Hillary Clinton has been an excellent senator for New York.

Mr. Tasini, a labor leader who once successfully sued The Times on behalf of freelance writers, is the politically impractical candidate from the left that many commentators incorrectly imagined Ned Lamont to be when he challenged Mr. Lieberman in Connecticut. Mr. Tasini deserves credit for making the run and we are sorry that Mrs. Clinton did not respond to his demands for a debate. But it is hard to imagine him working well in a large body of egotistic and generally conservative politicians.

•

Mrs. Clinton has been a happy surprise for many doubters since she first won office in 2000. Everyone expected her to be intelligent and hard-working. But despite her obvious ambition for higher office, she has been focused on issues that are important to the state, as well as accessible and aggressive in fighting for New York’s interests. She works well with both her Democratic colleagues and with Republicans, who found her far more collegial than they expected. Given the relatively powerless position of Senate Democrats, she has scored a few real wins — most recently in pressuring the Bush administration to allow the “morning-after pill” to be sold over the counter. She has found the right balance between bipartisanship and the responsibility of the minority party to be both watchdog and whistle-blower on behalf of the public. She has also reflected, at least in a general way, the opinions of the majority of her constituents on the war issue. We urge Democrats to vote for her in the primary on Sept. 12.