Democracy Corps has a great new poll out on national security and the 2008 election cycle (Also look at the slides [pdf]). I think the overall conclusion is: Democrats should address national security head on because they can beat Republicans on this issue.
There has been a pretty intensive debate in recent years in Democratic circles about the best foreign policy and national security message. And it's gotten going again in the last few months as we head into the 2008 election cycle. On the one hand there is the school of thought that argues that Democrats need to link national security to domestic failures and argue that the Bush Administration has the wrong priorities. Portray the Iraq war as damaging our economy and our interests at home and promise to bring our troops home. This seems to make a lot of sense considering the current economic situation.
The other school of thought argues for taking the security issue head on and arguing that Republicans have been reckless and irresponsible in Iraq and and that Democrats will bring our troops home and focus on the other national security challenges that we face all over the world. It argues that Democrats will never overcome their historic deficit on national security as long as they shy away from the issue and do not address it head on.
Democracy Corps went ahead and tested both message options against John McCain's message.
John McCain says: I have been involved in every national security issue over the past 20 years, and having served this country, I know how important our security is. Barack Obama seems hesitant to stand up for America, and would run up the white flag of surrender in Iraq, pulling out our troops, handing al Qaeda a victory, and endangering our vital interests. I was the leading supporter of the surge, which is now succeeding,and I will press for victory in Iraq. I will also strengthen our military, restructure our intelligence agencies, and build missile defenses to protect us from rogue regimes like Iran.
Priorities At Home Message: We need a change of priorities in our policies abroad. George Bush failed to stand up for American workers on trade and oil, and his failed policies in Iraq cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. John McCain was Bush's biggest supporter on Iraq, and would keep our troops there for 100 years. As president, I will start bringing our troops home from Iraq during my first 60 days, direct more of that spending to our needs at home, insist on labor protections in our trade agreements, and support alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil from dangerous regimes.
Security Message: We cannot afford more of the reckless, extreme national security policies of the Bush years that lost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. But John McCain was Bush's biggest supporter on Iraq and says he is willing to keep our troops there for 100 years. I would strengthen America's security by bringing home our troops from Iraq during 2009, doing what we need to win in Afghanistan, rebuilding our alliances, and pursuing a new alternative energy policy, including alternative sources, to reduce our dependence on oil from dangerous regimes.
The results are interesting:
Both the "priorities" and "strengthen America's security" narratives beat the McCain narrative by about 8 points... But among the key bloc of independents, the "strengthen America's security" is much stronger. The priorities narrative beats the McCain narrative by an average of 5 points, but the "strengthen America's security" narrative beats McCain by a whopping 26 points... One factor that helps power this message is the characterization of the Bush-McCain Republican national security policies as "reckless" and "extreme." By a 10-point margin (40 to 30 percent), voters believe Republicans are more "extreme" on national security; by a 41-35 margin, they believe Republicans are more "reckless."
So, basically what this seems to say is that while the priorities message is a good one for core Democratic constituencies , the security message has a broader appeal to the swing constituency that is necessary for a general election. Democrats have a long history of being afraid to talk about national security. But this time they shouldn't shy away from the debate, because it looks like they can win it.