Picture the seventh grader who just brought home a report card full of Cs and Ds. After getting chewed to pieces by his parents, he points to the lone bright spot:
“C’mon… It’s not all bad.. I did get a B+ in art!”
“Art? ART?!?!” the overbearing and despondent father retorts, “Tell me how you’re getting into college with a B+ in art!”
That’s where national security stands as a political issue after this election: A bright spot that the electorate doesn’t much care about. The message from this election on national security is therefore somewhat simple: National security is not on most voters’ radar screen right now, and will stay out of sight until national security is threatened.
In the broad range of national security topics, only Afghanistan so much as registered as an issue this cycle, and barely so: a paltry 8 percent of respondents to a CNN exit poll indicated that the war was their chief concern. Of those, 57 percent voted Democratic, which hints at a (very) quiet confidence in the president’s handling of the war.
Even as it’s not at the top of the issues list, the electorate still supports the president on national security, according to a mid-September Democracy Corps poll. Since there have been no major national security issues in the ensuing six weeks, we have to assume the president’s 53 percent approval rating (42 percent against) stands. In a way, it’s a remarkable achievement for a president whose party has historically suffered in the polls when it comes to national security, something we call the “national security confidence gap” around here.
Despite the positive polls, the Democratic base (possibly in bed with spending hawks in the Tea Party) will likely turn its focus again to Afghanistan. Following Obama’s kept-promise on Iraq, the left will still expect a draw-down begun by mid-2011 in order to come out in force for the re-elect. The drawdown won’t begin in earnest until 2012, but a mid-2011 announcement will at least adhere to the letter of the president’s promise. There’s some wiggle room for progress, but not much.
As for the new Congress, if their performance to date is any indication, Republicans will feel empowered in the wake of this election to pick a few fights. To date, they’ve gone out of their way to hit Obama politically on every attempted terrorist attack. Those attacks have largely wasted their breath to this point, failing to shake public confidence.
But long-standing conservative bugaboos of Gitmo, missile defense, foreign assistance and potentially DADT loom large. (I’ve heard rumors that DADT will definitely be addressed in the coming lame-duck period, however.) Buck McKeon (R-FL) is the incoming HASC chairman and a big proponent of missile defense, so watch that in particular.
This opens an interesting gambit on Pentagon spending: Some sort of defense budget restraint is coming, and there’s probably at least bipartisan acknowledgment of that general principle, but I’d be shocked if this loose consensus included HASC Republicans. News today suggests the military’s $50 billion intelligence budget will be stripped from the Pentagon’s topline and moved under the DNI’s control. Is this just a sleight-of-hand that will substitute $50b more of weapons spending?
These fights will be a painful distraction for the administration, but should not dilute the White House’s core competency: keeping the country safe. Various forces will continue to make progress in Afghanistan frustrating, but the White House should continue to tout its successful record of taking the fight to al Qaeda in Af/Pak, scoring important diplomatic victories against Iran, and defending Americans against terrorist attacks. Continue to do this, and progressives will continue to make strides against the national security confidence gap.