The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' Heel

Concerns about the economy recently overtook Iraq as the issue that most concerns Americans. At first glance, one traditional Republican strength - national defense - has ceded its place to another Republican strength - a jittery economy. Taken together, however, the primacy of these two issues in the minds of voters makes for one huge Democratic talking point: The Iraq Recession.

There is no question that the war in Iraq - which eats up over $275 million per day - is intimately linked to our economic downturn. As early as September of 2002, leading economists were predicting that a prolonged or "serious" conflict in Iraq would hurt the world economy:

"A war against Iraq could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars, play havoc with an already depressed domestic economy and tip the world into recession because of the adverse effect on oil prices, inflation and interest rates, an academic study [by William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale University] has warned." [Independent, 11/16/02]

It's also pretty clear what the solution is - better governance that Democrats can and will provide:
We need deep changes, not bandaids. And a majority of Americans agree on at least a few changes: we can leave Iraq. We can stop the irresponsible government borrowing. We can reduce military aid to dictators like Musharraf. We can end undeserved corporate welfare and no-bid contracts for work that doesn't get done.

We cannot permanently put our economy on the right track while we fight never-ending wars of aggression. This is a point most Americans can easily understand, and it makes every Republican who clamors on about "fiscal responsibility" and "tax cuts," while at the same time pledging to continue or expand the war in Iraq, look naive and unfit to lead.

Take John McCain's appearance on Meet the Press this morning. After talking about how well the surge was "working" and telling Tim Russert that, "We have to succeed there. It's long, hard and tough," McCain proceeded to talk about his economic record:

And let me go back to 2001 again.  I was right, we had to have restraint of spending.  I'm proud to have been one in the Reagan revolution where we not only cut taxes, which I'm proud to have supported and I have a record of it, but we restrained spending.  And when you have tax cuts and not restrain spending and let things go completely out of control, as we did, look, we lost the 2006 election because we didn't restrain spending.  So I not only didn't--had a different set of tax cut proposals, which were very strong, but I also had restraint of spending.

Russert should have realized this blatant contradiction and followed up with a question like, "You say you believe in tax cuts coupled with reduced spending, but how do you reconcile that with your support for a war that costs almost $300 million a day? Are you proposing we cut taxes and not rein in spending, something you just said you were against?"

The Iraq Recession, in light of the fundamental illegality and immorality of the Iraq War, makes a mockery of any war hawk/fiscal conservative. The two positions are inherently incompatible, and as such, the Republican party's two greatest "strengths" - national defense and the economy - have been turned into their two greatest weaknesses.

More Democratic candidates need to pick up on this Iraq Recession idea. Moveon is already on the case. The concept of a war boom and bust is well understood. This is an opportunity to take the fight to Republicans on their home turf and win.

It's not hard for Americans to understand that the Iraq war is bleeding our economy dry, and that their two worst fears are actually intimately linked. Once that message has gotten through, the choice in 2008 will be clear.



Display:


I don't think that's "per day" (none / 0)

That's for the life of the war.


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:48:21 PM EST

Forgot to say... it's a great post (none / 0)


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgot to say... it's a great post (none / 0)

It's an excellant post. The Reagan-Bush sponsored National Debt is killing us already, preventing any continuation of the Democrat's liberal-socialist agenda, whose next advance seems to be universal health care.

It is highly significant that Hillary is disparaging, no accusing Obama of supporting single payer health care, while she is for a corporate run system.

Can you imagine, a proported Democrat, accusing another Democratic candidate of liberal-socialism, of sponsoring a universal health care system on a par with all of the EU and English speaking countries?

Hillary and Bill are out of touch.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Yes, $4100 is not per day


by Almanax on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:49:16 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

My mistake. Will correct shortly....


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

I like the frame - I hope it gets some traction.

Russert should have realized this blatant contradiction and followed up with a question like, "You say you believe in tax cuts coupled with reduced spending, but how do you reconcile that with your support for a war that costs almost $300 million a day? Are you proposing we cut taxes and not rein in spending, something you just said you were against?"

Since you said "should have", I will assume that you know Russert would never question Saint McCain is such a rough and unseemly fashion. That kind of treatment is reserved for politicians who are not press corps darlings.

This is a hard rule for all the MSM, but nowhere moreso than at NBC/MSNBC. (Fox is actually harder on McCain than the SCLM, because they are suspicious of his Conservative bona fides.)

For example, the other day the NY Times quoted McCain saying that tax cuts raise revenue, and then said that he proposed to pay for his tax cut by cutting "pork barrel" spending. See the contradiction? The Times didn't.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

It is such an obvious question too. I mean, I was in bed watching the show, running on about 4 hours sleep, hungover, and not even really paying attention, and I knew to ask that question.

So, you're right. This isn't "oversight," this is dodging the issue.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican (none / 0)

I have been raising this point for years to convince democrats who think they can ignore a candidate's iraq war policy if they can deliver a better set of "policies'. Well those policies are for naught when the war takes up valuable discourse time, research time, and money that could be used to solve other problems.

This should be the central point to make the Republicans look stupid.


by Pravin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

It's also pretty clear what the solution is - better governance that Democrats can and will provide

Who are you trying to kid, besides yourself maybe?

DLCDems have been collaborating with the Bush/GOP/Corporate agenda for decades. Expect more of the same from them regardless of who controls Congress. Together with the Republicans they are a filibuster-proof majority that could even overide the vetoes of a Democratic president who tried to stand against them.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:58:01 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Yes Ralph. There's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Sure, whatever you say.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Well, Mary, if you had read carefully you would have noticed the term "DLCDems." I wasn't referring to every Democrat in DC, just the DLCers who reguarly collaborate with the GOP to give them the real majority in Congress.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

My mistake. You were just defenestrating half the Democratic party, not the whole thing. Look, the left wing of the party could all agree to join the Greens, or form a new party, or whatever. Or they could conceivably make the centrist wing into pariahs and force them out. Either way, you would guarantee power to the protofascists in the Republican party for generations to come.

You simply can't gain power without the help of the DLCers you hate so much. You either form a coalition with them and try to push them to the left as much as possible, or you resolve to remain out of power for a long, long time. I wish the Dems in Congress would vote more progressively too, but calling them GOP collaborators is not gonna do it. You need to engage them and give them incentive to stick their necks out and vote progressively. They are a lot more reachable than the independents and moderate Republicans to whom Obama is trying to reach out - why is is so hard to believe that we can form a coalition within the Democratic party?

BTW "Ralph" was referring to Mr. Nader. Who the heck is "Mary"?


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:52:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

Dianne Feinstein has been a joke in the senate when it comes to ending the  war.She profits mightily off of the military industrial complex via her husband and she is on the armed services committee? Conflict of interest???@!!!

2 years since one of the best elections for the DEmocrats in recent years, and we are still making such slow progress on checking Bush on the war.

There is definitely a difference betweeen REpubs and Dems, just not as big as it should be.

All these years we had the DLC types joining in the "left" bashing. It's not just the "radical left" that hates this war. If you look at my diaries, I am one of the MYDDers who is not afraid to take a "conservative" position on some issues. And I hate the Democratic Party for wussing out in oppposing Bush-Cheney and punishing all the war profiteers sufficiently regarding the Iraq war.

A few years past Katrina and is Louisiana any better? Have the DEmocrats done enough? Instead they lose the state despite Bush & Co fucking up. Have the Democrats done enough in demonizing the misery profiteers in Katrina the same way Bush Sr used Wilie Horton? Why not start using similar symbols to our advantage. Let's make some rich white fatcat well connected contractor our Willie Horton attack ad.


by Pravin on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

I agree, it is frustrating. I blame the Republicans much more than the Democrats. For proof, look no further than their setting a new record for filibustering bills in the Senate, with an entire year still to go. In a way, our task will always be the harder one - when out of power, they can succeed merely by throwing sand in the machinery, because they don't want the government to work anyway.

But yes, the Democrats have been far too timid. They seem to be sufferring PTSD of a sort from the repeated battering they have taken since the 80s. I am hopeful that they will gain confidence with another winning year in 08. The rise of new media has helped to at least slightly disrupt the right wing's lock on the media, and that will grow as well.

Baby steps, baby steps.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

"You simply can't gain power without the help of the DLCers you hate so much."

What the actions of the Democratic controlled Congress since the 2006 election have demonstrated is that to "gain power" with such people is to gain nothing. Their ongoing collaboration with Bush and the GOP has enabled them to maintain the working majority.

And it will never change so long as most Democrats keep their heads in the sand about it.

"BTW "Ralph" was referring to Mr. Nader. Who the heck is "Mary"?"

"Mary" would be Ms. Landrieu. But referring to you as "Joementum" in return for your compliment would have been more obvious and just as accurate.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession (none / 0)

Hee Hee - Joementum. No, actually I am not much like Joementum (or Ms. Landrieu, as far as I know). But I started the chidish name-calling in this thread, so let me be the first to apologize. I hereby un-call you Ralph.

I think we are probably ideologically closer than you suspect, in terms of real issues that affect peoples' lives. It is just that you appear fed up and ready to blow up the party and start over from scratch. And to you, anybody who is not likewise inclined has their head in the sand.

I prefer to take the long view in dealing with our blue-dog brethren. We should engage them, show up at their town hall meetings, phone them, email them, and by all means primary them as often as we credibly can. Make them see the up-side of voting progressively, and the down-side of caving in to the Republicans.

QUIZ
A journey of a thousand miles begins with ...
a) a suicide bombing
b) a single step


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

My understanding of "DLCDems" has always been that they are ruled by corporate interests more than foreign policy ideologies. Which means this frame neatly ties things together.

Want to help your corporate buddies? Get the economy on the right track. Want to get the economy on the right track? End the war.

Might just work...


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Good lord...some of these conspiracy theories by ultra members of this board just make themselves look foolish.


by werd2406 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Actually, these are the people who not only make themselves look foolish, but help enough Democrats  
to keep betraying their own party's promises and platform.....


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

ultra liberal*


by werd2406 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

J ro great post!  Honestly O feel the Nation as a whole has not felt the direct impact of the war. Either financially or physically.  We are so caught up in American Idol and Super Bowl while we have a travesty occurring in Iraq.  Ultimately the financial and emotional cost of this war will surpass ANY war ever fought in recent history.  While Bush tries to paint himself as a Lincoln like Commander in Chief, hes legacy and ultimately his presidency will be marred by disastrous decisions that will have to be addressed by the next commander in chief. Finally, democrats and the future nominee (Clinton or Obama or Edwards) must make the appeal to  the Nation to stop the senseless military spending  that is brought upon by electing republicans and in turn elect a democrat who can improve the economic situation thus end the war.


by nzubechukwu on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:25:43 AM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

Completely right. The effects of this war, in blood, treasure, PTSD addled soldiers, displaced and radicalized Iraqis, etc... will be felt for decades. Just as the Cold War and its aftermath shaped our conflicts with the rest of the world for decades, so will our blunder in Iraq.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

George Vreeland Hill (none / 0)

Bush is a complete ass who has no clue about how to fix any mess he started.
I can't wait for 1/20/2009.
Enough said!

George Vreeland Hill


GEORGE VREELAND HILL
by Vreeland on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:08:06 AM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

The war is either worth it or not and should be de-funded by the Democrats if it's not.  While we are over there, the war spending should not be framed in the same context as other government spending issues and/or how to stimulate the economy.  The main purpose of the government is to protect and defend, not to micromanage the economy.
If what you say is true about an "Iraq Recession", then there are not many alternatives.  You either de-fund the war and come home or you take actions to stimulate the economy.  And if it's stimulating the economy, then the liberal/democrat message of higher taxes will not win an election because that is the exact opposite of what you do when there is a recession.  Who's caught in the trick-bag now?
by KensUSA on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:41:27 AM EST

Re: The Iraq Recession, The Republican Achilles' H (none / 0)

I admit this does set up a false choice. Nothing is ever as simple as Iraq war on one hand, recession on the other. However, there is a lot of truth to the numbers.

Specifically because of the higher taxes issue (I don't think we can convince the country right now the Keynesian economics is what we need) is why this frame is so important. If Democrats say we'll fix the economy by ending the war - which means freeing up all kinds of money to do other things with - no higher taxes should be needed. Hell, you might even be able to cut taxes temporarily without going further into debt. It's hard to see fiscal conservatives disagreeing with that logic.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:06:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.