Orange County Register Friday, March 23, 2001

Democrat strategy against GOP is indicative of past military campaigns

JOHN J. PITNEY JR.   Mr. Pitney is associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. His book was published by University of Oklahoma Press.

I recently published a book titled "The Art of Political Warfare,'' which argues that politics resembles military conflict in many ways. Perhaps my publisher worried that the book would become obsolete when President Bush came to office amid talk of civility and bipartisanship. Never fear: the war goes on. As the House prepared to vote on the Bush tax cut, Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., put it this way: "Well, my assessment after just a few weeks of this Congress is that bipartisanship is over - not that it ever began."

Indeed, the war clouds had been gathering for weeks. Julian Bond, the former Democrat politician who chairs the NAACP board of directors, attacked the Bush administration in mid-February. "They selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chose Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

That remark came soon after Joe Andrew's farewell address as chair of the Democratic National Committee. Andrew thundered: "We're going to fight 'til hell freezes over and then we're going to fight on the ice."

According to Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative,'' that line originated with a Confederate soldier at Gettysburg. In light of recent fights over Confederate battle flags - not to mention Bond's "canine" bite - it is odd that a top Democrat should adopt a Confederate battle cry.

At the same time, however, it is natural that Andrew used military language. After all, politics is about conflict, which is why so much political language comes from battlefield vocabulary. Words such as "campaign," "strategy," "tactics" and "slogan" were all military terms long before they took on civilian garb.

Political leaders routinely see themselves as combatants. Gephardt has tried to rouse his Democratic colleagues by showing them footage from the movie "Braveheart." In October, he arrived at a caucus session wearing a breastplate and face paint. "It's time to pick up the spears!'' he shouted.

In war and politics, enmity deepens when one side thinks the other has won through trickery or treachery. A recurrent theme in the annals of warfare is the thirst to avenge a "stab in the back." And many Democrats believe the Republicans stole the 2000 election.

When Democratic leaders complain about the Florida returns, they are venting genuine hard feelings. But harping on the 2000 race is also part of an effort to rally the troops. When DNC leader Terry McAuliffe talks about using anger and resentment from the 2000 election in "a positive way, " it's just his effort to cover his hard edge: There is no such thing as "positive" resentment. McAuliffe and other top Democrats will keep invoking the last election in order to enlist angry volunteers, register angry voters and dun angry contributors.

One might argue that conflict hampers governance, but why should the Democrats care? For the first time in 50 years, the Republicans control the presidency, the House and (albeit barely) the Senate. Without responsibility for any national institution, and with control of Congress almost in their grasp, Democrats have every incentive to fight every fight that will win them political points. Republicans were in a similar position when Bill Clinton came to office. Although they worked with the White House on NAFTA and some other issues, their strategy stressed confrontation over cooperation and they scored a smashing victory in 1994.

A couple of days before Joe Andrew's "fight them on the ice" speech, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said that Democratic opposition to the appointment of Attorney General John Ashcroft had been "a shot across the bow," that is, a warning of imminent combat. If political analysts want to understand today's partisan conflicts, they would do well to read the classics of military theory. And if Bush's troops want to keep winning, they need to open their own "war room."

Return to homepage