Some Democratic strategists are starting to worry that President Obama’s opposition to a recently passed House bill regarding Syrian refugees, and his refusal to change his policy for fighting the Islamic State, could hurt Democratic lawmakers and congressional candidates in next year’s elections.
“It’s never good for Democrats when they’re on the defensive on national security and terrorism-related issues,” veteran Democratic strategist and former top Senate Democratic aide Jim Manley said.
Polls back up that assertion. A recent Morning Consult survey showed that voters preferred a generic Republican candidate to handle national security issues over a generic Democrat. Numerous polls also show that most Americans do not approve of Obama’s strategy for fighting the Islamic State, and also oppose his plans to resettle 10,000 refugees of the Syrian conflict in the U.S. this year.
Another veteran Democratic strategist accused Obama of “digging in his heels” unnecessarily, and questioned whether it will hurt vulnerable Democratic members and Democratic congressional challengers.
“They’re going to be stuck with it,” the strategist said.
By not seeking a compromise with House Republicans on the bill to condition the entry of Syrian refugees, Obama forced his caucus to “take a tough vote they shouldn’t have had to take,” the strategist continued. “There could’ve been a way to let cooler heads prevail.”
Manley said the House bill, passed with the help of 47 Democrats, is just the opening salvo in Republicans’ bid to put Democrats on the spot.
They will be “looking for soft spots where they can put Democrats on the defensive,” he said. “House Republicans, in particular, will continue to look to exploit the issue.”
The Democratic strategist said Obama’s unwillingness or inability to explain to Americans that he understands the anxiety that drove the House refugee bill “is making it much more difficult” for Democrats. But fighting about refugees is perilous for both parties, he added.
“You know someone is exploiting Paris for political gain the minute they say they aren’t exploiting Paris for political gain,” he said.
A former top Democratic congressional aide said the House bill and GOP similar measures being considered on Capitol Hill are “more about messaging” than policy. “They’re heading into an election year and they’re trying to get an edge on national security,” the former aide added.
Manley warned Republicans against overplaying their hand now that Americans are more nervous about the Islamic State and potential attacks on the homeland in the wake of the Sunni terrorist group’s assault on Paris.
It’s not a “slam dunk” for the GOP, he said. “As soon as they start talking about putting boots on the ground in Syria… I can guarantee you they are going to have very little support from the American people for that.”
In the Bloomberg poll immediately after the Nov. 13 attacks on Paris, voters were split on the issue of ground troops. Forty-five percent opposed the idea and 44 percent supported it, and 11 percent were undecided.
Manley said that was a reaction to Paris but that overall, voters really do not want the U.S. to wade into another ground conflict in the Middle East.
“Most Americans are tired of the empty rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney crowd,” Manley said, referring to the prevailing mood in the country after the tenure of President George W. Bush, who launched two wars in the region. The attitude that leads to putting boots on the ground again, “that’s not going to fly,” Manley said. “No one wants to hear that talk again.”
