Down-home philosopher Will Rogers famously said, “I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat,” referring to its infamous reputation for internal bickering. He would not recognize the party today in its unity behind the effort to end the war in Iraq.
While there remains disagreement within the party on the pace of withdrawal of American forces, the Democrats have held their slim majorities in the House and Senate behind veto-inviting legislation ? that includes timelines for getting out ? as the price for continuing to fund the war.
By agreeing to give President Bush the money he seeks to press on, the Democratic approach has weakened but not entirely undercut the White House strategy of painting the Democrats as the party of surrender. The Republicans continue to say the timelines message telegraphs to all our enemies in Iraq that all they have to do is hold on until the Americans leave.
It is in this political context that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have deftly crafted a Democratic unity backed by public support for ending the war, in hopes of nudging Bush toward an achievable exit strategy.
But some of Reid?s words have themselves undercut the Democratic effort. In carelessly blurting at a news conference that “the war is lost,” he blundered directly into the hands of the White House strategy. The comment unleashed a barrage of Republican cries of outrage, along with strained defenses from fellow Democrats scrambling for cover.
Vice President Dick Cheney, quick to seize the opening, called Reid?s remark “uninformed and misleading,” and reflecting an attitude of “defeatism.” The feisty Reid shot back that he was “not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.”
Whereupon he said he wasn?t going to do so “with the administration?s attack dog.”
It was hardly the first time that the bland-appearing and soft-modulated Reid had let his sharp tongue belie his benign countenance, as Washington Post columnist David Broder, seldom given to harsh judgments, noted in suggesting that the Democrats and the country deserved better from the Senate leader.
As evidence of the newly crafted unity of the Senate Democrats behind Reid?s leadership, all 50 of his colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus took the unusual step of sending a letter to the Post defending him as “an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic leadership through these first few months with skill and aplomb.”
The letter listed the “great strides under his leadership,” concluding that “in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming they ?don?t recall? anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided.”
But there are ways for any political leader to speak his mind without handing the opposition political ammunition, and presenting grounds for arousing the passions and hostilities of voters who may see declaring the war “lost” as either premature or unpatriotic.
In the face of an administration that has demonstrated repeatedly the ability, even the eagerness, to strum the strings of jingoism to rally public support and arouse animosity toward the opposition, Reid?s blunder was particularly egregious to his own cause.
He could well take a leaf from the political handbook of his colleague, Speaker Pelosi, who while making some rhetorical slips of her own has by and large layered her criticism of her Republican opponents with judicious restraint.
In counseling Bush, for example, to “take a deep breath” and “calm down” on his veto threat, and remember there is “a new Congress in town,” she defended the Democratic posture of legitimate opposition more effectively.
The days and weeks ahead that portend a critical debate not only over the course of the war but also on serious constitutional questions about the roles of the executive and legislative branches will require more light and less heat from both sides.
Reid and Cheney can better serve their parties? interests, and the country?s, by dispensing with the name-calling in conducting that debate. But with the stakes and the tempers so high, it?s probably too much to expect from either gentleman.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
