LA TIMES/November 11, 2001.
THE PRESIDENCY The Political Clock Is Ticking By KEVIN PHILLIPS, Kevin Phillips' most recent book is "The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics and the Triumph of Anglo-America." [He's a strange conservative.] WASHINGTON -- Yes, that's partisan politics-as-usual tiptoeing back into Washington. But it's still mostly in domestic affairs--spending, tax and health issues--and rarely in matters relating to the war on terrorism or the fighting in Afghanistan. That reticence, while patriotic, may be unfortunate. Questions about the conduct of wars in the United States usually heat up about five to 15 months after fighting begins. At this stage, if there's little military success, the party not in the White House usually profits from the public's skepticism of the war's conduct and makes gains in midterm elections. That happened during the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II and the Civil War. Could this happen in 2002? Yes, if the public gets the sense that the Bush administration has been inept in home-front security, that Osama bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at us or that U.S. bombs and missiles in Afghanistan are falling too close to the Asian and Middle Eastern fault line of a possible World War III. The Democratic gubernatorial pick-ups in last Tuesday's elections in New Jersey and Virginia--the only major statewide races held--suggest that a Democratic tide is already running on domestic and economic issues. Neither of these elections, nor any national opinion polls, even hint of a growing voter skepticism of President Bush's war policies to match that already evident on newspaper front pages and in some media broadcasts. Still, some of the questions being raised by the media deserve to be raised--constructively--by the opposition party. That's not the way American politics works, though. The opposition sits back and waits rather than risk saying too much. The exception, which is worth remembering, was in 1990. A lot of Democrats were skeptical of or opposed to President George Bush's plan to militarily recapture Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. To defuse the doubt, Bush moved U.S. troops to bases in Saudi Arabia, organized an international coalition and developed a battle plan--all before the Persian Gulf War started in early 1991. It worked, even if the coalition forces stopped before toppling Hussein. This year, however--and it's probably inevitable, given that terrorists attacked Manhattan and Washington--the U.S. military response came quickly, before all the strategic, diplomatic and conceptual ducks were in a row. The consequences to date, unfortunately, have been lots of dropped bombs but few big-time hits, a slow response to the anthrax crisis, a furor in the Muslim world that has prompted talk of the U.S. losing the public-relations war and an obvious edginess on the parts of erstwhile allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Worst of all, the U.S. failure to track down shadowy terrorist chieftain Bin Laden has forced the Pentagon to start emphasizing the havoc it has rained down on Afghanistan's Taliban regime, as if our aerial capacity was ever in doubt. On these issues, the opposition, not surprisingly, is largely quiet or in hiding. By contrast, political differences are entirely acceptable to the public when it comes to the economic-stimulus package. Democrats want more unemployment, low-income and health-care assistance, while Republicans prefer tax cuts for business and upper-income Americans. Politics are even OK in the matter of airport security: Democrats want to federalize airport screeners, while Republicans prefer to subcontract the job to private companies.... [for more, see: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-000090118nov11.sto ry?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
