Repeat after me: "We--are--less--safe"

(updated below)

Permit me to engage in some armchair political consulting, a little unsolicited advice for the Democratic party as it heads into the '06 midterm elections.

There is currently one issue, and only one issue, standing in the way of a new and potentially lasting Democratic majority in this country, and that issue is terrorism. For whatever reason, the Republican party has been able to convince a large percentage of the public that it is "tougher" on terrorism than the Democratic party, that Democrats cannot be trusted to protect us. With the approval ratings of the President and the GOP-controlled Congress at near record lows, this perceived strength on terrorism is, for all intents and purposes, the only weapon left in the Republican arsenal. Which is why, despite its diminished potency, the GOP intends to make this issue the centerpiece of its fall election strategy. What else can they do? It's all they've got.

But if the Democrats are aggressive and disciplined, there is every reason to believe that they can turn even this issue to their advantage. In an important and insightful post on Tuesday, Ed Kilgore made the following observation:

We're all familiar with the "flypaper" theory, so often
articulated by Bush himself, that whatever else is going
on in Iraq, the insurgency there is drawing jihadist attention
and resources away from attacks on the U.S. ("We can fight
them here or we can fight them there," as Bush routinely says).
And I personally think this factually crazy contention has been
far more important to Bush and the GOP than most of us would
like to accept.

Back during the last presidential campaign, I became convinced,
mainly through conversations with undecided voters back
home in Georgia who would up voting for Bush's re-election,
that the most powerful thing the incumbent had going for him
was a rough and unsophisticated argument that went like this:

Some Arabs came here and killed a bunch of Americans.
George Bush went over to Iraq and killed even more Arabs.
Since then there have been no attacks. He must be doing
something right.

Anything and everything that reminds Americans that the
Iraq War has not done a thing to reduce the terrorist threat
against the United States will erode that argument, and
with it, the GOP's belief that any and all concerns about
national security will benefit it at the ballot box.

His advice:

To the extent that clearly focusing on what they would do
to deal with the actual terrorist threat undermines both
parts of the Republican argument, while connecting public
unhappiness with Iraq with residual concerns about
terrorism, Democrats should hammer away on this subject
every day. This administration has been a national security
disaster. The "flypaper" has worn out, leaving us with a
horrific mess in Iraq, an energized and growing jihadist
threat, and a country more exposed than ever to
terrorism. It's time for a dramatically new direction.

I think Ed is exactly right, both in a descriptive and prescriptive sense. The key to turning the electorate around on this issue is convincing them of one thing: the Iraq War has made us less safe. That sentence should be the first thing and the last thing out of every Democrat's mouth between now and the November election. It should be repeated ad nauseum until every single American has heard it at least 52 times.

That's how Republicans get their message across. They use simple phrases ("cut and run," "flip flop," etc.) and they repeat them endlessly. The other day Steve Benen picked up on the newest entry in the Republican playbook: the administration's "adapt to win" strategy in Iraq. That phrase--"adapt to win"--is evidently meant as a replacement for the increasingly mocked "stay the course" strategy. As Steve points out, Ken Mehlman repeated the phrase endlessly in his appearance on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

The Democrats need to fight back with simple phrases of their own, and nothing could be simpler than pointing out, endlessly if need be, that the Iraq War has made us less safe. The potency of this phrase derives not only from its evident truth, but from the fact that it creates a direct and easy to understand link between Bush's greatest weakness--the Iraq War--and his one remaining strength--terrorism. This particular talking point also has the advantage of increasingly representing the view of the media intelligentsia and pundit class. Hendrik Hertzberg, after noting some recent Cronkite-like expressions of disillusionment from prominent press figures, observes:

[I]n this August of 2006 a palpable, '68-like shift in sentiment
is in the steamy air. Among foreign-policy elites and the
broader public alike, it has become the preponderant conviction
that George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq is a catastrophe.

I think he's right about that, and that means the conditions are ideal for the Democrats to turn this issue to their advantage, finally. Democratic politicians, candidates, spokesmen, and pundits just need to get out there on the airwaves, in the newspapers, and on the stump, and repeat some version of the following whenever they get the chance:

President Bush's disastrous management of the war on terror has made us less safe. When it comes to foreign policy, strength is about more than being aggressive, it's about setting priorities and knowing how to pick your battles. Instead of devoting our resources toward fighting those who attacked us on 9/11 and building-up our homeland security, President Bush has embroiled us in a disastrously ill-conceived war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Three years later we are still there, paralyzed. The war has squandered our resources and our standing in the world. It has emboldened our enemies and further radicalized the Muslim world. And worst of all, it has diverted our time and attention away from the real threat. As a result, we are less safe than we were five years ago. That is the Republican legacy. It is time for a change.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has another good post where he makes a number of similar points. He ends it with this question:

Is there anyone in the country who can say honestly, in
their heart of hearts, that when that moment of fear hit
them after the recent reports out of London, they said to
themselves, "God, I'm glad we're in Iraq"?

Anyone?