Bad news for the Democrats

Call me a nerd, but I always like to look at online polls. I know online polls are not scientific because they are not random and only those who wish to participate do so. But it is always interesting to see what other nerds with too much time on their hands are thinking about.

This time, I stumbled upon an unusually revealing poll posted in CNN.com. The question asked was "which issue is more important to you in the 2004 election, Iraq or the economy?" With almost 150,000 votes cast, the vast majority of CNN.com users -- 68 percent -- decided that the economy was a more important issue to them. I believe that if a proper poll asking the same question were conducted nationally, the results would not change much.

It is no secret that the economy tops the list of the concerns of the American electorate -- particularly when the economy is not doing so well. But if we take this piece of information and place it in the context of last week's news of a very strong performance of the US economy during the last quarter, we can start to think about its repercussions for next year's election. It all boils down to this: if the economy picks up its pace and delivers a significant amount of new jobs sometime before next summer, the democrats will have a really hard time trying to unseat George W. Bush.

Of course, it is way too early to tell whether or not the economy has fully recovered and whether or not this recovery will alleviate current unemployment in time for Election Day. But the figures are certainly impressive. The 7.2 percent growth recorded for the third quarter of 2003 is the fastest quarterly growth since the mid-1980's. This is good news for the country, and it is certainly good news for those of us who are trying to get a job. For Democrats, however, good news on the economic front means bad news for chances of getting back the White House.

I wonder how the leading Democratic presidential candidates reacted to this news. I would like to think that they were happy for their country. But let's be honest here --they were probably very disappointed. The dream campaign for the Democrats is a repetition of the 1992 campaign, in which they were able to defeat an extremely popular president (who also invaded Iraq) because the economy was lousy. Now, the probability of pulling off a Clintonesque victory looks remote. It seems like the Democrats might need another issue to run against Bush Jr. this time.

The clear alternative issue on which the Democrats can base their platform is foreign policy. However, like the poll I mentioned above implies, the sad truth is that most Americans do not care too much about foreign policy. They might disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, but they would not vote him out of office just because of that. This is a frustrating reality for those of us -- American and international alike -- who realize that there is much more at stake in the coming election than the state of the American economy.

How the US conducts itself abroad is very important for the whole world. Do we want an impulsive and arrogant giant, throwing its weight around? Or do we want a powerful nation that acts as an enlightened leader and cooperating partner? George W. Bush offers the former scenario. The Democrats should make the case for the latter. We are now immersed in an extremely important political debate on the proper role of the US, and politicians should extend this debate to the electorate. The daunting task for Democrats this coming election will be to translate international concerns into domestic ones.

Now that the Democrats can no longer hope for a bad economy, they should not hope for a disastrous Iraq. Placing your electoral hopes on the misery of other people puts yourself in a very precarious situation. Their message should be independent of Iraq or the economy -- but they can also be incorporated. They need to make a clear case of what is wrong with Bush's policy (and there is plenty of that) in everything from tax cuts to abortion rights to civil rights.

It is not just about the economy, stupid. Bush Jr. beat Al Gore after Clinton presided over one of the most prosperous periods in American history. There are plenty of other issues Americans should be concerned about. And if the Democrats can make a successful case for international cooperation rather than international bullying, they may have a chance next year.



Rodrigo de Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached via e-mail at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.