The San Francisco Chronicle has interviewed a number of analysts who believe that among the consequences of the military campaign in Iraq could be to destroy the Republican Party?s decades-long electoral advantage over Democrats on issues of war and foreign policy. Columnist Jim Pinkerton offered a funny line in this regard: ?In times of war, the instinct is to trust dad more than mom, and the Republicans have benefited from that. But if dad keeps wrecking the car, then there may be reason to change.?
Two thoughts occur to me on this point. First, in a way, it is both unexceptional and praiseworthy. In a republican form of government, politicians and parties should in the long run be accountable to the voters for delivering effective public policies. If invading Iraq proves in the end to be a colossal blunder, it is a blunder not only initiated by President Bush but actively supported by most Republican officeholders (as well as many others, of course). The assumptions or principles used to justify and carry out the military campaign would deserve rethinking and possibly abandonment by the GOP ? the kind of reconsideration for which electoral losses are a likely motivation. It?s a feedback loop.
The other thought, though, is that the political futures of the Democratic and Republican parties should be nowhere near the top of the list of priorities for public servants. They run as partisans but their job is to take actions, often risky ones, to protect and serve the American people. History has shown that such decisions can be unpopular in the short run but wise in the long run. Harry Truman left the presidency unpopular and at a time of Republican ascendancy. But his foreign-policy choices proved, for the most part, to be the correct ones. Arguably, the Democratic Party never benefited electorally from this. So what?
