In fall 1967 Eugene McCarthy decided to force what he referred to as “a referendum on Vietnam” by launching an antiwar challenge to President Johnson. It was a courageous act. At the time polls suggested that while Americans were frustrated about the course of the war, their preferred solution was not the exit strategy McCarthy counseled but escalation. Democrats who oppose the current military engagement in Iraq face no such challenge. This fall’s polls show a substantial majority of Americans believe the country should start bringing the troops home. And with the call by one of Congress’s most decorated veterans, John Murtha, for establishing a withdrawal timeline, all but a handful of Congressional Democrats–and even some responsible Republicans–are beginning to talk about exit strategies. That does not mean, however, that everyone agrees about what must be done, or that an end to the war is in sight. But it does mean the Iraq debate has evolved from a contest over how to manage the US occupation into the question of whether the occupation should continue. That question will be a central–perhaps the central–issue of the 2006 Congressional elections.
In our November 28 cover editorial, “Democrats and the War,” we took the stand that “The Nation will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign.” We urged voters to join us. In recent weeks, as more Democrats have spoken out against the war and for a timely exit, we have come to believe even more firmly that antiwar candidates, with the requisite credentials, can prevail next fall. The first step in that process is, of course, to encourage support for such candidates, as we are doing this week and as we will continue to do throughout 2006.
Among leading Democratic Representatives and strategists, there is a palpable unease about laying out a withdrawal timeline. The DC insiders fear that doing so might provoke a voter backlash, despite the evidence of the polls. It is encouraging that recent weeks have seen significant if incomplete movement in the House Democratic caucus toward embrace of an exit strategy, especially since minority leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed Murtha’s plan.
But the same cannot be said for the Senate caucus, which continues to send dramatically mixed messages. A handful of members, like Russ Feingold, clearly support a timeline, but others, like Joe Lieberman, still back Bush’s “stay the course” talk. And top Democrats, like minority leader Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton–who has attracted an antiwar primary challenge from former National Writers Union president Jonathan Tasini–continue to try to have it both ways, expressing ever-increasing impatience with Bush’s approach but rejecting a firm exit strategy. Clearly, the Senate could use more Feingolds. But that shift will not occur simply by electing Democrats in the half-dozen contests where seats are open or where Republican incumbents are weak. The key is to elect the right Democrats, or to force the wrong Democrats to get right about Iraq. That prospect now seems increasingly viable in the states where the most competitive Senate races are playing out; in most of them there is at least one serious antiwar contender. The outcome of these challenges is as uncertain as McCarthy’s was in December 1967. But the value of every serious antiwar candidacy, even those that merely put pressure on eventual nominees to clarify their stances, is beyond debate. While contests in the House are often hard to “nationalize,” Senate races tend to focus on national and international issues, and as the 2006 competition gears up, they are attracting more antiwar contenders than at any time since the late 1960s and early ’70s, when opponents of the Vietnam War made virtually every Senate contest a referendum on the war.