What if Iraq isn't the biggest campaign issue by the time the presidential election rolls around?
By Terence SamuelThis week we were reminded of exactly how far away November 2008 really is, and how radically different the political landscape could look by the time we get there. On Monday former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in a satellite hook-up to Hong Kong, said that the U.S. economy could be headed for a recession later this year.
He was much more cryptic than that, but what happened next couldn't have been more obvious; on Tuesday, world markets went into a swoon, driven by plunging Chinese equity prices and a report of weakened durable goods orders in the United States. The Dow Jones Industrial average fell 416 points.
This forced the current Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke, into action. He reassured us that the markets were working well and that there was no single cause for the big sell-off on Tuesday. And he stepped on Greenspan's "recession" speculation, reiterating the central bank's expectation that the economy will grow by 2.5 percent to 3 percent this year -- less than the 3.3 percent growth we had in 2006, but still no recession. "There is really no material change in our expectations for the U.S. economy," Bernanke told the House Budget Committee, the day after the sell-off. "...There is a reasonable possibility that we'll see strengthening of the economy sometime during the middle of the year."
The Dow rose 52 points on Wednesday, and by Thursday Greenspan was backpedaling in Tokyo. He told a business seminar there that while a recession was possible, it was not probable. Soon the markets seemed to have righted themselves, but for a minute Iraq was not all we could talk about.
As hard as it is to imagine, it is impossible to dismiss that in 2008, Iraq as an election issue may be eclipsed by economic instability, both at home and abroad. Bernanke's assurances of modest growth, for example, were predicated on a stabilized housing market -- which we do not have -- and the completion of "inventory corrections" in the manufacturing sector, which has been on a rollercoaster ride for a few months now. It grew in February, shrank in January; grew in December, shrank in November.
And in regard to a stable housing market, we seem headed in exactly the wrong direction. This week the news was full of bad omens: Mortgage defaults are on the rise at the same time federal regulators are warning banks that they do have enough money set aside to cover losses from loans that go bad.
Nationally, the loan-loss reserves set aside by banks are at the lowest level since 1990, and while no one is predicting a run on banks, the one thing we have learned from the war in Iraq -- the great principle of our times -- is that things can turn out much worse than anticipated. Much, much worse.
Every conversation in Washington these days has as its central context the outcome of the 2008 presidential campaign. And not surprisingly, there is a growing sense that the election is the Democrats' to lose; it's hard to see how Republicans recover from Iraq, especially with the candidates they have now.
There is, of course, the concomitant Democratic angst over which inventive ways they will find to squander their opportunities, but for the most part there is a healthy confidence that Iraq is going to be the issue -- and that spells doom for Republicans.
Let's give credit where it is due: Republicans are the ones making it so tempting for Democrats to hope, still voicing support for the war and still standing by their president. But 67 percent of respondents in a Washington Post/ABC News poll disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq. You would think John McCain had never encountered the concept of collateral damage.
The 20 months until Election Day may as well be 20 years. Things can change -- but maybe not so much in Iraq. The Administration does not know this, but in a very fundamental way, the war in Iraq is over. It is completely unsustainable in the existing political climate.
A majority of Americans, 64 percent, say it's not worth fighting, and 85 percent of those asked in the Washington Post/ABC News survey said we should set a deadline and be out of there in a year. Almost half, 46 percent, said the deadline should be six months. How does a lame-duck president with a 35 percent approval rating keep fighting such an unpopular war?
Badly. Until something or someone -- and here I have Congress in mind -- stops him. But at this point there may be little in the way of surprises to come in Iraq. As outraged as Americans are about the war, they are not yet feeling instability in their own lives. If the economy begins to go south, too, the White House may be looking back at today's 35 percent job approval rating as the good ol' days. In 2008 it could be the economy again, Stupid!
Terence Samuel is a political writer in Washington, D.C. His weekly TAP Online column appears on Fridays.
To subscribe to The American Prospect click here: http://www.prospect.org/
Be sure to check out our profile on MySpace.com: http://www.myspace.com/theamericanprospect
Students, search for us on http://www.facebook.com/
Check us out at Gather: http://prospect.gather.com


Comments: 11
But trust both sides to dance around the issues. While congress and Bernanke fiddle we Romans, and Baghdad, burn. Collateral damage is just something that happens on TV.
It's always been about the economy and it will be about the economy in 08. But, whose economy is it about: the economy of special interests who have benefitted greatly from the war in Iraq, or the economy of ordinary people who have made very real and long term sacrifices without fully comprehending the very real cost of empire building,
I think there is going to be a populist resurgence in 2008, and the candidate(s) who harness that most effectively will be the winners.
When people see that jobs are being shipped overseas, they fear for their own, they lose their health care, and they cannot afford the basics any more, then it doesn't matter where the stock market is. Then the people feel the economy is bad no matter what economists tell them or what statistics you throw at them. It's a visceral thing.
I agree with Bert. People are beginning to feel that they don't count any more. That only big business and fat cat executives who can afford to buy a congressman or two or more have any importance to the government. And they have a lot of proof of that. People are growing more and more cynical.
Wow, it only took 4 posts to get to calling Democrats anti-American. That's gotta be close to the record. Congrats.
Perhaps you're used to "fair and balanced" empirical but patriotic lies?
The majority on both sides are pigs feeding at the same trough. When was the last time you heard someone from either party tell you the truth about an issue? How many Democrats did you hear get upset when king george said "The Constitution is just a GD piece of paper"?
The money supply has been so inflated by the Fed printing press that it is not a matter of "if" but "when" the worldwide ressesion/depression hits.
Don't worry they already have a plan to "save" us from their treason. It's called the North American Union and the Amero.
We are already bankrupt we just havn't filed yet!