Sleepwalking Democrats and American Public Support for President Bush's Attack on Iraq

Abstract

Since the threat posed by Saddam Hussein became the leading issue in American politics and international relations in late summer 2002, American public opinion has been out of step with public opinion in other western democracies. In the months leading up to the war, compared with citizens elsewhere, fewer Americans felt that war in Iraq was unjustified, fewer felt that UN-endorsement was necessary before a war could begin, and more Americans were willing to support unilateral action by the US. Why were Americans more supportive of a pre-emptive war in Iraq? There were many reasons, but in what follows, I blame the Democrats in Congress. I focus on the Democrats because other factors shaping public opinion – such as the obvious reality that September 11 occurred in the United States and nowhere else – do less to distinguish America from other countries than did the behavior of our political elites in the months leading up to war. And I “blame” the Democrats because they lacked the courage to debate the merits of President Bush’s foreign policy. Had they opened a debate, American public attitudes toward the Iraq issue would likely have been quite different, and much closer to those of our allies. This would have made it more difficult for President Bush to proceed with a war that lacked the legitimacy of broad international support of the sort seen in the first Iraq war, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. And it would have given Americans the opportunity to weigh competing visions of how to protect their physical and economic security in the post-9/11 world. Failing to articulate a clear response to President Bush’s security policy on Iraq was a mistake for the Democrats. The mistake may have rested on false assumptions about national security – something we will never know because the only world we will observe is the one that’s seen a controversial preemptive war unfold in the face of broad international opposition. And the mistake almost certainly rested on false assumptions about optimal electoral strategy for the Democrats. Indeed, at a time when the core Republican supporters are a fragile coalition of extremists – whose opinions are much further from the average American’s than are the opinions of core Democratic supporters – the leaders of the Democratic Party are tripping over each other to avoid confrontation with President Bush on the issues that are most important to Americans. This should stop. The Democrats must collectively articulate a coherent set of security principles that provide a