Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared in The Washington Post.
The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.
After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.
Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation.
Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed.
Like the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, the Iraq crisis was a critical test of the Democratic Party's willingness to use force in the national interest. Thanks to the Blair Democrats, it was a test that Democrats largely passed.
The emergence of the Blair Democrats should be no great surprise. Historically, they are lineal descendants of the party's great internationalists: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. Recognizing that U.S. global leadership requires strong military forces and the will to use them, they reject the left's attempts to cast Democrats as a reflexively antiwar party. Indeed, the Iraq debate revealed a party that is moving away from McGovernism and back to its internationalist roots.
In 1991, for example, only 10 Democratic senators voted for a resolution authorizing President George H.W. Bush to forcibly expel Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. Last October, a majority of Democratic senators (28 in all) approved a U.S. attack to disarm Hussein. (In the more partisan House, a majority of Democrats opposed the resolution.) But what best reveals the party's collective mind on national security is its selection of a presidential nominee. That the Blair Democrats seem to be leading the pack is a welcome sign the party is serious about challenging GOP dominance of security issues.
The Blair Democrats see no contradiction between national strength and international cooperation, between the willingness to use America's power for liberal ends and the recognition that working through global alliances and institutions makes us stronger, not weaker. For example, they favor internationalizing Iraq's reconstruction, to share economic burdens and political risks with our allies and the United Nations and to quell widespread fears in the region that America will become the new colonial overlord. They believe it's also urgent to start repairing the breach in the Atlantic alliance, by expanding NATO and refocusing it on the new common threats of terrorism and proliferation.
As internationalists, the Blair Democrats are poised to itemize for Americans the high political costs of the Bush administration's belligerent unilateralism. While successful in war, the White House was anything but in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq, triggering the most virulent wave of anti-American sentiment in decades. Count on the Blair Democrats to hold President Bush accountable for these diplomatic failures as the presidential election heats up.
