Political split on war on terrorism highlights party
differences
Arnold Hamilton / The Dallas Morning
News (KRT)
DALLAS - For Republicans and Democrats alike, Sept. 11,
2001, propelled the terrorism and security issue to the top
of the nation's agenda.
The consensus didn't last long.
Less than three years after the attacks in New York and
Virginia, the issue now serves to underscore America's
hardening political divide - a disconnect between Democrats
and Republicans over what's most important in selecting
the next president.
From Texas to California, Iowa to New York, exit polls from
the recent primaries showed the war on terrorism and the
issue of homeland and national security scarcely registering
among Democrats, lagging far behind the economy and jobs,
health care and education.
Yet Republicans give it much higher priority in national
polls - and President Bush already signaled he would make his
handling of the nation's security challenges a
cornerstone of his re-election campaign.
"They just have different views of America's place
in the world and the use of force," said Bill McInturff,
a GOP pollster who helps conduct nonpartisan surveys for
National Public Radio.
"In general, Democrats are much more focused on core
domestic issues ... Republicans, because of their theory of
the role of government, are a little more geared to looking
outside the box of domestic issues."
The partisan divide over what would seem - at first glance -
to be an issue of shared national interest suggests America
is in a strikingly similar mood politically to four years ago
when Bush won one of the closest presidential campaigns ever.
Indeed, recent national opinion surveys and primary exit
polls show a hardening of the almost 50-50 political split,
reflected in the 2000 election returns that showed
Republicans (red states) dominant through the nation's
midsection and Democrats (blue states) powerful along the
East and West Coasts.
That leaves Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry scrambling
to determine which issues will resonate with voters in the
political middle who could swing the election.
The Bush campaign's faith in terrorism and security as a
re-election cornerstone wasn't necessarily affirmed in
polls since last week's terrorist attacks in Spain: Even
after the commuter train bombings that left more than 200
dead, few Americans identified terrorism or security as a
leading issue they want the candidates to discuss.
Yet most polls still show that Americans trust Bush more
than Kerry to deal best with terrorism and security.
The parties' differences, campaign analysts say, reflect
a fundamental truth about American politics: Democrats and
Republicans view the world differently.
"To President Bush and to the red states, the war on
terrorism encompasses everything from the war in Afghanistan
to the war in Iraq to airport security," said Bruce
Cain, director of the University of California's
Institute of Governmental Studies.
"To the people in the blue states, the war on terrorism
has two different parts - a part they absolutely detest, the
war in Iraq, and then there's airport security and the
war in Afghanistan. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that
the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on
terrorism."
Convinced an improving economy will disarm one political
mine field, Republican strategists say they believe terrorism
and security will resonate this year, especially with swing
voters such as suburban women.
"A lot of Democrats don't see the economy as coming
back," said Chris Wilson, a GOP pollster working for
Bush's re-election campaign. "But the economy is on
the way back," he said, helping redirect the
presidential campaign debate to foreign policy, which
"almost always decides presidential elections."
"It's very rare where you have a 1992," he
said, "where it's all about domestic issues."
But Democrats say they are equally convinced that domestic
issues - the economy and jobs, health care and education -
will prove most important with voters.
National polls show a majority of Americans believe Kerry
would be a better choice to deal with domestic problems, a
political strength that helps explain his focus on jobs and
health care.
"As you know, George Bush wants this whole deal just to
be about war," Kerry said during a recent campaign stop
in Louisiana. "His first advertisements have pictures of
Ground Zero.
"He can't come out here and talk to you about jobs.
He can't come out here and talk to you about protecting
the environment. ... He's going to try to scare America
and he's going to try to change the subject."
On both coasts, voters acknowledged the importance of the
war on terrorism, but they sharply disagreed over who could
best lead the country on the issue.
"I think that's very important," Democrat Bill
Canfield, 83, a retired speech pathology professor from New
York said. "But I don't have much faith in what ...
(Republicans have) done to protect our national security. On
9-11, they were asleep at the switch and they haven't
done much since."
Republican Maggie Bailey, who lives near the gates to Camp
Pendleton near San Diego, said terrorism and security are
paramount in her decision to support Bush - not only because
she frequently travels, both domestically and abroad, but
also because of its "implications on the global
economy."
"I think the choice is very clear," said Bailey,
53, a professor of international business at Point Loma
Nazarene University who formerly worked for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and U.S. Senate. "I don't know that I would
say it was his finest hour," she said of Bush and the
days after Sept. 11, "but it certainly was a time when
he brought the country together through a national time of
mourning."
"I don't know how anyone else would have responded
... but there was tremendous strength in that."
Cain, the University of California political science
professor, said he believes it ultimately comes down to a
difference of opinion over the issue of international vs.
unilateral action.
Democrats tend to prefer an international consensus, he
said, while Republicans often seem less concerned with
outside opinion.
"What's underneath all these differences is more
than just a party label," Cain said. "It's
about lifestyle: What do you read? What do you do on
vacations? Do you travel to the Smokey Mountains or do you go
to Paris? Do watch Fox News or read The New York Times or Los
Angeles Times?"
Many political analysts suggest about 40 percent or more of
the electorate tend to be staunchly Republican and a like
number unwaveringly Democratic. As a result, it's the 20
percent or so in the political middle who often decide
presidential elections - voters such as Al Hudspeth, a
48-year-old technical writing consultant and computer
programmer from Rock Hill, S.C., near Charlotte, N.C.
Hudspeth, who described himself as a registered independent,
said he's not certain if new security measures really are
making American safer or "if we've just been lucky,
if they (terrorists) just haven't gotten the right
opportunities."
But he said the terrorism and security issue isn't
nearly as much on his mind - at least, for now - as the
outsourcing of American jobs and environmental problems in
his area.
"It's kind of a thing that the further away from
9-11 we get, the more it gets on the back burner," he
said. "If something were to happen between now and then
(Election Day), it would make it more important."
---
© 2004, The Dallas Morning News.
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at
http://www.dallasnews.com/
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
| 
