Seven Questions: David Gergen on the Midterms

FOREIGN POLICY: This election is being called a referendum on the Iraq war. Do the results mean that President Bush must alter his course in Iraq?

David Gergen: The electorate has sent a clear message to the White House that it wants a change of course in Iraq. What is less clear is what that change should be. The Republicans ran on a platform of saying they wanted to adjust course in Iraq, but they didnt say how. The Democrats offered many plans but didnt unite around a single one. What is clear is that most Americans want to see this [war] brought to an end in the coming months. This [election] isnt a call for an immediate withdrawal, but for a phased disengagement.

FP: After 9/11, many people said the Vietnam Syndrome was deadthat Americans were now willing to accept large numbers of casualties in prolonged interventions overseas. Does this election prove that wrong?

DG: What we are seeing in Iraq is not a replay of the Vietnam Syndrome. Rather, its a sense that we are engaged in a conflict without an obvious end in sight and [that] things are getting worse. The Vietnam Syndrome argued that we should not commit force again unless our vital interests are clearly at stake. But in Iraq, we did commit our troops to conflict without a clear national interest at stake. It was a war of discretion and yet, the American people supported it. So, I dont think the Vietnam Syndrome is what our problem is here. Rather, it is that the war has been so incompetently managed that the people have lost faith in the capacity of those running it.

FP: Do you think the election results will lead to a more diplomatic approach when dealing with Iran and North Korea?

DG: There will certainly be pressure on the president to embrace a more diplomatic approach. However, these elections did not speak to a public mood with regard to either of those threats to our national security. This election, in terms of foreign-policy selection, was more about Iraq and trade than it was about Iran or North Korea. So I dont expect to see a sway in our approach toward those countries.

What I do think is going to be front and center for the next few weeks is a contentious debate about where to go from here in Iraq. Our ambassador to Iraq was quoted in the Financial Times yesterday saying that the president had told the Iraqis, Dont worry about the elections, Im still in charge, Ill be the architect of policy. The electorate has said something quite different. If the president doesnt listen to those voices here at home, I think theres going to be one hell of a row.

I think oversight is going to toughen up in both the House and the Senate. There is going to be push on the president to come up with a different team and a different approach, starting in Iraq. And there will be pressure from some Republicans for changes. The Republican senators realize that a lot of them are up for reelection in 2008, and they dont want to become the next group of endangered species.

FP: How will the rest of the world interpret these election results?

DG: Many of our traditional friends, especially in Europe, will welcome these election results. They will probably see it as a return to sanity. This may be a bit unfair to the Bush administration, but many allies are going to be quietly relieved. It will have been the first indication to them that there are limits to how far Americans will go in supporting the military policies of the Bush administration.

What should be worrisome is whether terrorist groups will be encouraged to believe that, if they keep pushing, America will weaken in its struggle. Thats why it is important for the Democrats to show that they are not flinching in the war against terror. They have to show that they are going to be just as tough, and that just because they will be arguing for some sort of disengagement in Iraq doesnt mean they are going to step away from a robust international policy on terror.

And there is an inherent danger that Iran and North Korea will misread this election as a weakening of American resolve with regard to nuclear proliferation. Its extremely critical that Democrats signal early on that they are strongly opposed to North Korea and Iran getting nuclear weapons and spreading them. The next days are crucial to forming a bipartisan coalition within Washington that sends firm signalsnot wobbly onesto people overseas that seek to do us harm.

FP: Do you think this election has disproved the Clinton mantra that the economy and jobs are what matter most to voters?

DG: No. I think what the election disproved is the mantra that all politics is local. This was a highly nationalized election. Well over 60 percent of the people in the exit polls for the House of Representatives said that national issues were most important to them. Thats why so many Republicans went down. In the Senate, a prime example is Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. The exit polls showed that he enjoyed a 60 percent approval rating among voters in Rhode Island and yet, he was defeated. There is only one explanation for his loss: That the voters in Rhode Island wanted to change the power balance in Washington. They wanted a Democrat instead of a Republican. Even though Chafee was a pretty ardent critic of the war, he went down simply because he increased the numbers on the Republican side. That is a nationalized election.

FP: Will the Democrats be able to deliver what theyve promised to accomplish in just two years? What strategy do you see them employingwitch hunt or watchdog?

DG: The Democrats need to be a watchdog, but they dont need to be a Rottweiler. If they are simply seen biting the Republicans for the sheer joy of it, they are going to pay a price themselves. Its important to remember that they took Republican seats in the House and those seats could be easily regained by the Republicans if the Democrats are irresponsible.

The good news for the country is that a Democratic congress is going to open the door to a comprehensive immigration bill. So far, this had been stymied by the House Republicans. On trade, its less clear. The Democrats are going to push for more labor and environmental standards. Whether they will also extend trade authority to the president next year is a very hard question. But if the president works with congress to provide more protections to workers in America, then he has a shot of getting Doha and other bilateral agreements done.

FP: What do the midterm results bode for 2008?

DG: These results are good for the Democrats, but they have to take advantage of them. Clearly, there is a hunger for a new face among the Democrats. Even though Hillary Clinton won an overwhelming victory last night, Barack Obama certainly seems to have emerged as the favored new face of the Democratic Party. But remember, this was a vote against Republicans, rather than a vote for Democrats. So, there is work to be done if the Democrats are to hold on to the seats theyve taken from the Republicans this election.

For the Republicans, this was a wake-up call. It signaled the end of the era of conservative dominance in American public life. What this does is brighten the prospects of centrists like John McCain. This election has been really good for him and his brand of bipartisanship.

David Gergen is professor of public service at Harvard Universitys John F. Kennedy School of Government and editor-at-large at U.S. News World Report. He previously served as White House advisor to four presidents.