New York Senator Hillary Clinton has been catching flack from
her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination after her
recent suggestion that another major terrorist strike against the
United States would help the Republican Party.
“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’”
she told an audience in Concord, New Hampshire. “But, if certain
things happen between now and the election, particularly with
respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans
an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no
matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”
Her opponents pounced. “Frankly,” Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd
shot back, “I find it tasteless to discuss political implications
when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United
States.”
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico insisted, “We shouldn’t
be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political
consequences; we should be protecting the country from
terrorists.”
“I don’t agree that Republicans would have an advantage,” former
North Carolina Senator John Edwards countered. “I would never cede
that….The focus should not be on politics or on votes. The focus
is going to have to be on what will have to be done to unite
America to make the American people safe.”
Illinois Senator Barack Obama got in a zinger too, even as he
attempted to remain above the fray: “No one in politics regardless
of party should play politics with an issue that is as grave as our
national security.”
On the one hand, Clinton’s opponents are right; it is
uncomfortable to speculate on the political fallout of the violent
deaths of thousands of Americans. On the other hand, Clinton is
likely right in her original assessment. Americans tend to rally
‘round the flag at moments of national crisis, which might mean a
surge of support for President Bush and his party.
In light of that calculus, however, an even squirmier question
came to mind as I listened to the candidates back and forth on the
issue. Namely: In the event of another catastrophic attack, how
many Democratic partisans would conclude that President Bush was
indeed behind the attack? If the idea seems farfetched, consider
that an August 2004 Zogby poll found that 49 percent of New York
City residents actually believed that members of the Bush
Administration “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or
around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to
act.”
The columnist Charles Krauthammer famously described the
seething hatred of the President among Democrats as “Bush
Derangement Syndrome.” It would therefore be an interesting sanity
check if, at the next Democratic presidential debate, the
candidates were asked whether they believed President Bush
conspired in, or knew in advance of, the events of September 11th
2001.
That would, I think, make for an especially revealing
show-of-hands question, akin to the moment in the first Republican
debate in which the candidates were asked to raise their hands if
they believed in evolution. If you’re going after the nomination,
do you give the intellectually defensible answer — and risk
alienating the more rabid elements of your constituency — or do
you toss the party faithful the hunk of red meat they crave?
Given the passions of the Democratic base, could any current
Democratic presidential hopeful afford not to hedge?
