Fear and Loathing the Mid-Terms

The New York Times reported a few days ago that "Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength." The report comes amidst a flurry of mid-term election news stories reporting Republican weakness and disorganization, reflected in their reluctance to be associated with President Bush, their inability to generate a clear political message, and in the increase of GOP districts that appear vulnerable to challenge. It is no secret why the Republicans, including the President himself, who has been stumping on the war on terror for almost a week already, have fallen back on the politics of fear. It is the only thing they have to offer. Behind the rhetoric of decisiveness, clarity of purpose, and resolve, lies political impotence and confusion. Floundering on immigration is only the most recent in a series of false starts and protracted, uninspiring legislative battles, including social security reform, the health care debacle, and the energy and transportation bills. The few of these measures that did pass were so mired in pork, parliamentary maneuvering, and compromise, that it has been difficult to claim any kind of victory beyond the traditional one of bringing home the bacon to one's own district.

The curious thing about this situation, however, is that the Democrats seem to be arguing over two, equally wrong-headed ways of approaching the politics of fear. They either hope to let the failure of the administration's policies speak for itself while they emphasize other social and economic issues; or they think they have to neutralize the security issue by addressing it and proving the Democrats' equality or superiority on that subject. Neither option is a convincing stand. In the first, the Democrats reveal their own lack of independent thought when it comes to the politics of fear by not saying anything about it. In the second, they expose their lack of originality if they adopt the language of security and simply try to beat the Republicans at their own game. Calling for an end to the war on terror is of course too radical a thought for the Democrats. But it's the unspoken third possibility, whose tacit rejection by the Democrats exposes one way in which, for all the sound and fury of these mid-term debates, we can expect little progress from the existing electoral process.