President Bush and his Republican Party allies in Congress are firmly on course to suffer devastating setbacks at the voting booth this fall. Bush’s approval rating, hovering around 30 percent nationally, has been steadily eroding even among his socially conservative base. The Republican controlled Congress is even less popular. It is no mystery as to why Republican fortunes are in peril. Iraq, tied to the war on terror by Karl Rove and others, proved a political asset in the 2002 elections, when Republicans bucked historical trends by gaining seats in both the House and Senate. But the benefits of Iraq have vanished, and the mess in Baghdad is now an albatross. Along with it, gasoline prices, immigration, and a myriad of issues, both domestic and foreign, are weighing the Republicans down.
As the beneficiary of the Republican meltdown, the Democratic Party is positioned to wrest control of both the House and Senate. Given that the Democrats have not controlled both houses of Congress since 1994, questions abound as to what impact a Democratic Congress would have on American foreign policy. What a divided government would mean for the Middle East is open to conjecture.
President Bush was forced to work with a Democratic Senate during his first two years in office, but unlike his immediate predecessors, has not had to deal with a hostile Congress. Until this year, his mastery over Congress was a given fact of American politics. With a loyal Republican majority, particularly in the House of Representatives, Bush has faced few congressional complications. He is the only president in recent history not to have issued a single veto.
The biggest complaint about Democrats has been the lack of coherent policy. Until recently, Democrats, timid after being repeatedly labeled weak on national security, have merely opposed Bush’s plans, espousing policies which generally were watered down versions of Republican initiatives. It was not until last year, when hawkish Rep. Jack Murha spoke out, that serious Democratic opposition to Iraq began to surface.
Nonetheless, reading the political tealeaves it is high time the Arab world begin to assess what the Democrats will do should they win. Clearly, there will be fierce debate over energy, Iraq, and Middle East policy. And because there is blood in the water, Democrats of late have begun to articulate positions on these key issues.
Last week, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid unveiled an energy proposal that called for a steep increase in funding for alterative fuels. Promoting corn-base ethanol as an alternative to petroleum has long been discussed in Washington, but the Democratic plan is notable in its scope. The plan also demands research on clean coal and a host of other biofuels. Politically, Democrats hope their energy blueprint appeals to the public at large, and particularly to voters in Midwestern and Western states where alternative fuels could be produced.
Careful not to alienate the rust-belt states, the Democrats also support providing the auto industry generous incentives to produce fuel-efficient cars — an acknowledgement of the importance of cutting overall demand, not just dependence on foreign oil.
Because Congress, not the president, has the “power of the purse,” it has the ability to pressure, limit, or cut funding for White House initiatives. This is the lever which Democrats will likely use vis-à-vis Iraq. The Democratic Congress will certainly not cut funding immediately, nor compel the president to withdraw troops. Congress has a historical distaste for doing so in the midst of military operations. But it will compel the White House to justify its policies on a range of issues — including the actual strength of the Iraqi government and security service, US military operations, and often wasteful spending associated with reconstruction. Should the White House fail to convince Congress it is on the right path, or that the path chosen promises success in the immediate future without massive costs in treasure and blood, it will alter policy by limiting funds.
How the Democrats will respond to the broader Middle East is less clear. Generally, Democrats, influenced by the renowned multilateralists Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have criticized Bush for taking a unilateral approach to the foreign affairs. In the Middle East, they have faulted the president for neglecting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which has grown worse since Bush took office. Less vocally, they have expressed concern over the alienation of traditional Arab allies, namely Egypt.
On the other hand, Bush’s professed policy of supporting regional democracy resonates with Democrats. Rather than Republican realpolitic, the Administration’s democratization campaign is a reincarnation of Wilsonian idealism. While Republican leaders grudgingly supported Bush’s Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and other similarly themed ideas, Democrats embraced the democracy argument, if not its implementation.
Come fall, however, Bush may have inadvertently limited his regional maneuverability because Democrats — especially should Tom Lantos and others chair powerful committees — will demand the president substantively, not just rhetorically, promote democracy. This could lead to intense debate over America’s policy toward Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two key Arab allies. To date, Bush has used neither carrot nor stick to encourage reform — prodding regional allies to reform while maintaining the status quo.
In the best-case scenario, a Democratic Congress will allow President Bush to concentrate on foreign policy rather than domestic politics. Forced to compromise at home with a hostile Congress, Bush likely will don the statesman hat and recommit himself to finding diplomatic solutions in the Arab world through constructive engagement.
Perhaps this will finally lead to a consistent regional policy which can be understood by Americans and Arab alike.
— David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group. He can be reached at: [email protected].
