Centerfield

The Pro-War Democrats

As a general matter, it's looking a lot like public opinion regarding the Iraq war will be fairly positive.

A number of challenges remain, and there's a lot of messy issues regarding how a new government will be formed and the amount of effort and sacrifice we will have to put in to stabilizing and rebuilding the country.

Some parts of Iraqi society, and some elements from neighboring countries, will most likely rebel against our presence. We will have to deal with those elements. Sacrifices remain.

Overall, though, this war seems to be stamped with the basic imprint of liberation. Most Iraqis did want to be free of the brutal dictatorship under which they lived. Most Americans feel good about having taken this action.

Current polls probably reflect what will be a highpoint of public support. The numbers may drop a bit once the more unpleasant aspects of occupation begin to register. It is interesting to note, however, that while support for war hovered in the mid-50% range a few months ago, the latest ABC News/Washington Post figure is 80%.

This basic impression of the war -- a war of liberation -- may have a distinct impact on the 2004 presidential race. Prior to the war, Howard Dean was capitalizing on the passionate opposition to the war among activist Democrats. The momentum was clearly his, as he pulled virtually even to frontrunner John Kerry in New Hampshire public opinion polls.

The abrupt collapse of the Baghdad regime, combined with cheering crowds waving American flags, will no doubt change a few things. A different faction within the party gains credibility, and the ear of some Democrats and more than a few independents. (Some in the latter group can actually vote in open primaries in states like New Hampshire.)

Throughout this crisis, the leading centrist organization within the party, the Democratic Leadership Council, has been trumpeting a "robust internationalist" foreign policy that included removing Saddam's regime. Their ideas differ a bit from Bush's, but on the issue of Iraq they strongly supported regime change. (See, for example, Why Saddam Should Go First, or Making the Case on Iraq, both of which were published last year in the DLC's Blueprint magazine).

Three candidates in the emerging 2004 presidential field reflect the DLC's foreign policy views -- John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt. Each was reasonably consistent in supporting the war. Edwards bravely stated his views in front of a hostile Democratic crowd in San Francisco a few weeks back. Lieberman has been an advocate of removing Saddam for all of the last 12 years -- since the first Gulf War -- and he'll be the only candidate on either side who can say he advocated "finishing the job" and removing Saddam back in 1991 at the end of Gulf War I.

Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt are our pro-war Democrats. Aside from the Iraq issue, Edwards and Gephardt have largely liberal voting records. So it appears that Lieberman will be the only distinctly centrist Democrat in the field who supported the war.

I have a lot of curiosity regarding what a foreign policy debate between Lieberman and president Bush would look like. Lieberman supports a bold foreign policy, as reflected in his public calls for regime change back in 1991, but he's also a strong internationalist and has very different ideas regarding other international hot-spots such as North Korea.

In my view, Lieberman's "robust internationalism" is more balanced and would likely give us a stronger position in the world. I wonder if we may just get to see that debate after all.