Will voters turn against the war?

The fifth anniversary of 9/11 brought a pause in the partisan rancour that is warming up as the US moves closer to the November mid-term elections. The break from partisan politics has, however, been short-lived. While the remembrance services were still in full swing, the ABC television network aired a controversial mini-series ‘The Path to 9/11’ which blamed US president Bill Clinton’s administration for not heeding warnings about a likely attack on America. The mini-series, which, according to Democrats, was secretly financed by the Republicans, only added to the sense of outrage felt by the Democratic Party about the way in which the Right consistently uses 9/11 to portray itself as the only patriotic party.

Five years after 9/11 there is no doubt that American society and politicians are bitterly divided over the war on terror. In the aftermath of the attacks, President George W. Bush succeeded in redefining American foreign policy while the Democrats became trapped in a dilemma of whether to follow Bush’s doctrine or look unpatriotic. However, the goalposts of the national debate are on the move and the Republicans’ monopoly on ‘patriotism’ is no longer secure. The ongoing campaign for the mid-term elections to Congress, on 7 November, is the starkest indication of this trend.

It is widely expected that the Democrats will score considerable gains, and will probably become the majority party in the House of Representatives and also make some gains in the Senate. This would be a major achievement for the party, given that the Republicans (or GOP) have controlled Congress since 1994. As always, the issues in the campaign underline voters’ domestic, often local, concerns; however, foreign policy has come to feature unusually prominently this time around.

Which party makes America more secure?

Until recently, most Americans were of the view that while the Democrats were better at managing the economy, it was the Republicans who made them feel more secure. After 9/11 this perception has given the Republicans a clear advantage, putting the Democrats on the defensive and causing fissures within the party.

However, as the Iraq war has become ever less popular the anti-war lobby has gained strength within the Democratic Party. The party’s ambivalence on the war was directly challenged during the primaries in Connecticut where the pro-war Democrat Joseph Lieberman was defeated by political novice Ned Lamont whose main, if not only, argument was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Lamont’s surprise victory in the primaries and Lieberman’s subsequent decision to run as an independent, have caused something of an earthquake in US politics. Most heavyweights in the Democratic Party are now supporting Lamont. In the meantime, the GOP and President Bush are endorsing Lieberman and withdrawing their support for the Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger.

Most significantly, the Republicans have jumped at the chance to portray Ned Lamont’s victory as proof that the Democratic Party has become ever less reliable on security issues. Vice-President Dick Cheney argued that Lamont’s victory aided "al-Qaeda types" and was making America less secure. The Republican attack has not spared pro-war Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton. In a commercial run by Clinton’s opponent, John Spencer, she is shown together with Osama bin Laden.

But the Democrats remain upbeat, however, seeing Lamont’s victory as an indication of the changing mood in the country. 79% of Democrats nationwide were happy with the result and 70% were of the view that the vote made the Democratic Party stronger in the run up to the November elections. Former Democratic challenger John Kerry argued that US "troops in Iraq would benefit from Lamont’s leadership".

It is still unclear whether Lamont’s victory will benefit or harm the Democrats’ national standing. However, there is no doubt that the Connecticut primary has changed the dynamics of the elections, emboldening the antiwar movement whilst uniting the GOP around their hard-line security discourse.

A change of guard on Capitol Hill will have consequences for the EU. A Democrat-controlled House would be a more moderate foreign policy legislator than the current one, which is, in fact, to the right of the White House. The House’s most hawkish legislation, such as the Iran Freedom Act or the resolutions concerning China, would likely be toned down.

Whilst the current House is a bastion of unilateralism and expresses little interest in working with the EU, this would be likely to change in the event of a Democratic victory. A vote calling on the President to present a timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq would also be likely to be pushed through. Beyond the changes at the level of the House, it is clear that a new and strengthened Democratic representation in Congress would weaken President Bush whilst solidifying the Democratic platform in the run-up to the presidential elections of 2008.

The fifth anniversary of 9/11 brought a pause in the partisan rancour that is warming up as the US moves closer to the November mid-term elections. The break from partisan politics has, however, been short-lived. While the remembrance services were still in full swing, the ABC television network aired a controversial mini-series ‘The Path to 9/11’ which blamed US president Bill Clinton’s administration for not heeding warnings about a likely attack on America. The mini-series, which, according to Democrats, was secretly financed by the Republicans, only added to the sense of outrage felt by the Democratic Party about the way in which the Right consistently uses 9/11 to portray itself as the only patriotic party.