| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: The Devils and their Details (September 17, 2002) The New Yorker's piece on Ayman al-Zawahiri was particularly revealing. By William Powers. Legal Affairs: Invading Iraq Wouldn't Necessarily Make Us Safer (September 17, 2002) Bush should hold off on military action until it's clear that arms inspections are not the answer. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: The Saturation Fallacy (September 10, 2002) Great Stories: To understand the enduring appeal of 9/11 coverage, take a look at Civil War movies. By William Powers. Social Studies: The Case For—Would You Believe?—Hope in the Mideast (September 10, 2002) As of today, there is no light at the end of the Middle East tunnel. But there is, at least, a tunnel. By by Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: Detain 'Enemy Combatants'—But Give Them Hearings (September 10, 2002) The administration's position is so outrageous that the Supreme Court might hand Bush a humiliating defeat. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Political Pulse: Critics From All Corners (September 10, 2002) The White House didn't seem to be in control of the debate over Iraq. By William Schneider. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Not Yet Written on the WindNo sign a strong force will blow in either party's favor this year by William Schneider .... Political forecasting is like weather forecasting—only riskier. These days, political forecasters are trying to predict which way the political winds will be blowing two months from now. Let's see how the winds have blown in past midterm elections. The issue that dominated the 1982 midterm election was President Reagan's suggestion that he would consider postponing cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients. A strong wind blew Democrats into Congress that year on a pledge to "save Social Security." In contrast, winds were calm in 1986. That's why it came as a big surprise when Democrats regained control of the Senate. It happened because of history, not politics. A gale-force wind had blown a lot of Republicans into the Senate six years earlier. When the winds calmed in 1986, many of those new Republican senators were left at sea. At the time of the 1990 midterm, the United States was engaged in a showdown with Saddam Hussein over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But the buildup toward war had not yet started, and foreign policy did not dominate the campaign. The nation was in a recession, and President George H.W. Bush had broken his no-new-taxes pledge. The winds blew in an anti-incumbent direction: It was one of those rare elections in which incumbents of both major political parties tended to see their margins of victory diminish. Yet few incumbents lost, so the message of dissatisfaction was not immediately apparent. But the results turned out to be a warning of things to come in 1992, the year of angry voters, Pat Buchanan, and Ross Perot. Then came 1994, a hurricane year. A huge storm blew away the Democratic majorities in Congress. The issue was President Clinton, with his tax hike, "Hillarycare," gays in the military, and gun control. Turnout surged as Southern whites, religious conservatives, and gun owners flocked to the polls to make a statement against the president. Southern Democrats who had survived for decades on their personal reputations suddenly found themselves labeled "Clinton supporters" and got swept away. 1998 was the year of impeachment. Many Americans voted to save a president who had made them rich. The shock came when the president's party broke with tradition and gained seats in the House—the first time that had happened for the party controlling the White House in a midterm election since 1934. The unexpected Democratic wind rattled the Republican majority and blew House Speaker Newt Gingrich away. What's the forecast for this year's midterm? The answer appears to be "Crosswinds." If national security issues dominate the election, the wind is expected to blow in a Republican direction. But even that's not clear. War anxiety has been growing and seems to be helping Democrats. Voters alarmed by the Bush administration's "rush to war" with Iraq could try to stop that rush by voting Democratic for Congress. But President Bush says he intends to get support from Congress. When asked whether that means Congress will have veto power over his decision, the president demurs. He apparently intends to ask Congress for support, not permission. Congress is likely to give its support, possibly before November, which could make the Iraq issue moot in the election. The Bush administration has just begun to make its case for war. That may be why the debate over Iraq has not yet penetrated the campaign. The September 2-4 Gallup Poll asked about congressional elections in November: "Which of the following issues will more important to your vote, economic conditions, or the possibility of war with Iraq?" Americans continued to say the economy—by 57 percent to 34 percent, about the same margin as in mid-August. If economic issues dominate the midterm elections, the prevailing winds are expected to be Democratic. But forecasters have not yet detected any sign of a strong Democratic wind. Congressional Republicans have attempted to protect themselves by passing a corporate-responsibility bill and a prescription drug bill in the House. "We're happy to fight it out in their box," the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee told The New York Times. "The bottom line is that the Republicans delivered, and we delivered on issue after issue." But what's true for Iraq is also true for economic issues: The debate is just starting. "If you believe that their greater amount of money will allow them to say anything they want and get away with it—well, I don't think they can pull it off," House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., remarked. One thing we haven't heard much about this year is values—issues like gun control, gay and lesbian rights, and abortion rights. In 2000, when the economy and world affairs were both pretty calm, values dominated the vote. It was dead even-"red" states versus "blue" states, conservative America versus liberal America. That had a lot to do with Clinton, whose behavior and values polarized the electorate. Those divisions persist. The whirlwind of Iraq, corporate scandals, the stock market, and the economy swirls above them. Some people are predicting that if there is no prevailing wind this year, there will be another stationary front, just as in 2000: a close race for control of Congress. Bob Dylan said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." In politics, you do. The problem is that this year there are a lot of weathermen, but there isn't much wind.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
