Some Democrats Are Worse Than Others

Most observers agree that the Democratic party will win the midterm Congressional elections. But which Democratic party? For there are two.

There is the Democratic party of MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos, the Democratic party whose supporters calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and acceptance of an Iranian nuclear bomb. It is the party of the Al Gore who publicly muses about impeaching George W. Bush.

But there is another Democratic party, and this one gets less airtime. It is the Democratic members of the House of Representatives who joined their Republican counterparts in 2004 to pass by a vote of 376-3 a resolution urging the administration to use "any and all appropriate means" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is the Democratic party of Steny Hoyer of Maryland (the number two House Democrat) and of Ike Skelton of Missouri (the likely next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee). And it is the party of a very different Al Gore, who had this to say about Iraq in June, 2006:

"It's possible that setting a deadline [for the withdrawal of troops] could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach."

Which Democratic party will emerge uppermost?

The first test will come as the leaders of the House choose the chairmen of the great House committees. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, has indicated she will rely heavily on seniority. That principle would put the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee (the committee that writes the first draft of America's tax laws) in the hands of Charlie Rangel: a big taxer and spender who represents Harlem. It would assign the gavel of the Judiciary Committee to John Conyers, a far left-winger who has actually drawn up articles of impeachment against the President. Most shockingly, it would suggest that the House Democratic seat on the four-member Select Intelligence Committee would be taken by Alcee Hastings, a congressman from Florida elected after he was impeached and removed from his position as a federal court judge on corruption charges.

If Rangel, Conyers and Hastings become chairmen, that will be a victory for the MoveOn.org Democrats--and a powerful statement about the course the Democrats have chosen.

The next test will come as the new committees begin their oversight. Do they use their investigating powers as tools of politics? Do they try to stage show trials for the television cameras, focusing entirely on past mistakes in Iraq rather than accepting Congress's shared responsibility for finding solutions? Do the committee chairmen make circuses out of the confirmation process?

Donald Rumsfeld has lasted as secretary of defense in very large part because the administration hesitated to undergo a big confirmation battle. These fears froze the Department of Defense leadership in place long after their effectiveness had deteriorated and their credibility had come under fire.

The 2008 defence budgets will test the Democrats as well. Will they allow the military all the resources it needs? Or will they slice and chop, using their power of the purse to impose a concealed foreign policy agenda?

The next Congress can play a very positive role in foreign policy. The Bush administration has sometimes gone dangerously easy with the Saudis and other Gulf Arab regimes. It lacks a coherent Iran policy and has baffled itself in Iraq. It has dangerously over-relied on Pakistani good intentions. And Condoleezza Rice is displaying early symptoms of succumbing to the futile temptation to solve the Palestinian problem.

A Congress intent on prodding and goading the administration to better policy choices could be welcome. A Congress eager to foil and thwart the administration's war effort, for the sake of partisan advantage, would be a disaster.

So which will it be?

The Democratic leadership in Congress will come under enormous pressure from many of its most fervent supporters in the country to choose the angriest, most destructive course.

But many of those leaders will remember that they have seen this movie before. From the McGovern campaign of 1972 until this very year, the Republican advantage on the issue of national security in most opinion polls never fell below 10 percentage points, usually hovered at about 20 and peaked after 9/11 at 30. That's the kind of advantage that decides presidential elections.

Having been on the wrong side of it for so many years, the Democratic party's leaders have vowed never to throw away the national security issue again, the way they did in 1972. They are determined never again to look weak on defence. But here's the tough part: The only way not to look weak on defence is not to be weak on defence.