Iraq Is a Loser for Dems, Too

The deepening controversy over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld must seem like a dream come true for Democrats campaigning for the midterm elections. What better foil than a troubled president supporting an embattled defense secretary waging an increasingly unpopular war? Little surprise that the Democrats are pressing the debate on Rumsfeld, engaging the Republicans on terrorism-related matters and issuing a continual flow of press releases on Iraq.

But it's a losing strategy. For nearly 50 years, poll after poll has shown that the Democrats have very limited credibility with the American public on foreign policy issues -- particularly among the swing voters who have a disproportionate say in the outcome of U.S. elections.

The Democratic Party seems certain to make serious gains in November's off-year elections, especially given the fallout from the House page scandal involving former congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.). But focusing on foreign policy matters -- and the war in Iraq in particular -- during the final weeks of the campaign could cost the Democrats close contests they might otherwise win.

Americans may be unhappy with how the Iraq war is going, but history makes it clear that an antiwar platform will not help the Democrats in 2006, any more than it did in 2004 -- or in 1972, for that matter.

It may seem unjust that the party of victory in World War II, of the Marshall Plan and of NATO does not enjoy much credibility on foreign policy. But that's the way it is -- and has been for quite some time.

President Bush certainly gets this. His recent speeches on the War on Terror and 9/11 sparked a rebound in his public approval rating, and his negatives are barely worse than the percentage who voted against him in 2004.

How could this be, given the constant bad news out of Iraq? Haven't polls over the past two years shown deep unhappiness with the war?

The answer is yes, but the published surveys often miss two critical follow-up questions. First: Do those who are unhappy with the war perceive the Democrats as better at handling the situation than the Republicans are? And second: Which party do swing voters trust the most to handle things in Iraq?

And here the numbers change dramatically.

A recent poll by my firm in five critical states (four of which barely went to the Democrats in 2004) showed that, by significant margins, swing voters and late deciders trust Republicans more to handle foreign policy issues in general -- not just terrorism, but Iraq as well. These are the voters who often determine the outcome of elections, but many Democrats are not paying attention to this fact.

By 20- to 30-point margins, these critical swing voters indicate that they trust the Republicans more than the Democrats to handle foreign policy (46 to 23 percent) and the fight against terrorism (48 to 19 percent). On Iraq, Republicans were seen as better at handling the war by an 18-point (45 to 27 percent) margin.

For students of polling, there is a history to these results that the Democrats ignore at their peril. In the 1960 contest between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, for instance, voters who made their decisions primarily on foreign policy issues chose Nixon by a 5 to 1 margin. Pundits point to the famous 1964 "Daisy Girl" television spot, and Lyndon B. Johnson's 60 to 40 victory over Republican Barry Goldwater as validation that the Democrats can gain from foreign policy issues. But Johnson's lead declined after the ad, which suggested that Goldwater would be dangerously trigger-happy, was aired.

McGovern's huge failure in 1972 to capitalize on widespread unhappiness with the Vietnam War should have taught the Democrats something. Indeed, among swing voters, the Republicans gained votes both as critics of the war in 1968 and as defenders of it four years later.

Democrats' failures to reverse the string of GOP victories in Congress in 2002 and 2004, as well as Sen. John F. Kerry's inability in the 2004 presidential campaign to move swing voters on the war issue, should be more contemporary warning flags.

What, then, should the Democrats do? If they want to change U.S. foreign policy -- or policy on anything else -- they must win elections. And there is a way.

The same swing voters who indicate such overwhelming faith in Republicans on terrorism, Iraq and foreign policy simultaneously express strong Democratic preferences when it comes to basic economic and pocketbook issues. They think that Democrats are more concerned about issues affecting Americans in the workplace, would better control the costs of health insurance by a comfortable 46 to 24 percent margin, and would better protect American workers from the loss of jobs to outsourcing and foreign imports.

Given these findings, it is no surprise that millions of dollars in Democratic candidates' television ads on Iraq and party leaders' statements on the war have only helped Bush's approval ratings -- and, prior to the Foley scandal, reduced a substantial Democratic lead in congressional vote intentions to a near dead heat.

Some Democrats have understood these critical swing voters. In the "Loneliest Campaign," author Irwin Ross describes how in 1948 Harry S. Truman, who led the nation during arguably the most creative and innovative foreign policy period in U.S. history, told his speechwriters to stay away from foreign policy in favor of domestic economic issues, the more populist the better. "Gluttons of privilege," he called Republicans.

Truman's strategy is still right on target.

The Foley scandal has momentarily eclipsed the attention to foreign policy so assiduously nourished by the president's recent terrorism speeches and visits by foreign dignitaries. However, if a victory in these off-year elections leads Democrats to the same false conclusion of failed presidential candidates from George McGovern to Kerry that the road to the White House can be found in foreign policy issues, then the Foley episode may turn out to have an unanticipated and ironic political consequence.

vfingerhut@aol.com

Democratic pollster Vic Fingerhut is president of Fingerhut Granados Opinion Research.