By Noah Rothman
Friday, January 10, 2020
For Democrats, the most significant political story of
2019 was one that many of the party’s members didn’t want to acknowledge:
Democratic voters were nowhere near as progressive as were most of the party’s
presidential candidates.
Steeped in the stultifying online environment, the
Democratic Party’s presidential aspirants sacrificed their promise by appealing
to identity obsessives and communitarian radicals. Kirsten Gillibrand thought
the nomination could be won not by demonstrating a command of the issues but by
pandering to women with embarrassingly obsequious flattery. Promising to seize
America’s guns and decriminalize illegal border crossings did Beto O’Rourke no
favors. Kamala Harris followed Twitter’s progressive influencers down whatever
ponderous rabbit hole captured their attentions. Elizabeth Warren surrendered
her image as the bookish policy wonk by advocating the partial nationalization
of the health insurance industry, forgiving the debts of her party’s most
favored constituencies, and funding it all with the extraconstitutional
expropriation of private property. Democratic voters just didn’t care what
Julian Castro’s preferred pronouns were.
The last progressive standing was the first: Bernie
Sanders. But even his appeal among Democratic primary voters seems from polling
inelastic and limited. By contrast, candidates like Joe Biden—who refused to
pander to Twitter’s intellectually inbred feedback loop, much to his campaign’s
consternation—and Pete Buttigieg—a progressive who presents himself as a born-again
moderate—have outperformed expectations.
If the lesson of 2019 was that the Democratic Party just
isn’t as progressive as its luminaries assumed when it comes to domestic
policy, the early lesson of 2020 might be that its voters are just as pragmatic
when it comes to foreign affairs.
Among Democratic presidential candidates, the reaction to
the Trump administration’s decision to take the blood-soaked commander of a
U.S.-designated terrorist group off the battlefield (where American troops have
been under fire for months) was greeted with universal trepidation. It’s not
clear, however, that Democratic voters are as gloomy about the effort to
degrade Iran’s capacity to execute direct and indirect attacks on the U.S. and
its allies. Polls conducted in the wake of the strike that neutralized Qasem Soleimani
suggest that voters are concerned about what happens next, and they don’t trust
Trump to competently manage a crisis. But it’s not at all certain that they are
as weak-kneed about confronting the Iranian threat as are some of their
representatives.
Among general election voters, polling relating to the
Soleimani strike has so far indicated that the issue does not mirror America’s
partisan divides. A Huffington Post/YouGov poll conducted from January 4-5
found voters approved of the strike by 43 to 38 percent. A January 5-7 Economist/YouGov survey showed voters
backed the strike by 44 to 38 percent. Reuters/Ipsos’s January 7-8 poll showed
42 percent of voters supported the strike while just 33 percent opposed it. If
support for Trump’s actions in Iraq essentially mirrors his job approval
rating, opposition to it most certainly does not. And while the press is more
inclined to play up these polls’ findings below the topline (“Americans say
Soleimani’s killing made U.S. less safe, Trump ‘reckless’ on Iran” was how USA Today characterized a poll that
found only one-third of voters oppose Trump’s actions), the nuances these
surveys uncovered are far more intriguing.
Another Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted from January 3-6
indicated that the deep reservoir of mistrust that has characterized Americans’
views toward Iran for the better part of a half-century persists even among
Democrats. When asked if Iran represents an “imminent threat” to the U.S., a
substantial plurality of all voters—41 percent—agreed. The number of Democrats
who agreed with that sentiment precisely tracks with the country as a whole: 41
percent. Huffington Post/YouGov confirms that Democrats and Clinton voters are
more inclined to view Iran as a “very serious” threat to the U.S. than even Trump
voters and Republicans.
This isn’t necessarily the product of a news cycle
dominated by Iranian aggression. A Fox News poll from July found that 57
percent of Democrats (and 60 percent of all respondents) said: “Iran poses a
real national security threat to the United States.” And while 42 percent of
Democrats oppose “taking military action to stop Iran from developing nuclear
weapons,” 38 percent support such an operation. Most polling on Iran over the
course of the year presents analysts with an intuitive conclusion: Democrats
are far more inclined to oppose military action against Iran than Republicans.
But those surveys also suggest that the voting public, including Democrats,
will support such a contingency under the right circumstances. It’s not hard to
make the case that Iran’s months-long campaign of direct and undeniable attacks
on Americans and their allies in the region meets those conditions.
That nuance is lost in the Democratic Party’s response to
the crisis that has come to typify the opening days of 2020. Even among the
party’s voices of moderation, it is fashionable to blame Trump even for
reckless Iranian provocations like the downing of a commercial airliner on the
night of January 7. According to Pete Buttigieg, for example, the blame for
Iran’s mistaken attack on a plane full of Iranians taking off from an Iranian
airport amid an entirely unreciprocated Iranian volley of rockets targeting
U.S. troops 500 miles away should be laid at Trump’s feet.
Democrats are betting that their voters, much less all
voters, are more or less inclined toward pacifism in the face of manifest
threats to U.S. interests abroad, but the polling does not support that
conclusion. Just as Democrats eventually learned that Medicare-for-all wasn’t
the surefire winner its consultant class believed, they may soon discover that
Americans are not as squeamish about killing terrorist commanders as they
presume.
No comments:
Post a Comment