Fighting the War on Terror: Democratic Opportunity, Republican Illusion

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2007.

Here's what we know: Democrats want to leave Iraq because it will allow us to focus on the world and make us safe from terrorism. Democrats are pushing for the adoption of the 9/11 Commission recommendations because we want to secure America. So is that message getting through? Clearly, not as well as they would like it to.

Republican inaction about common-sense measures to make America more safe has opened the door for Democrats to take back this issue. Republicans are playing a weak hand on security, but they play it -- they don't fold or sit on it. Democrats have a strong hand to play on security, but you can't win if you don't play.

Security is the sacred cow to Republicans. The last three federal elections were decided on security issues, with the Republicans winning two of them. In 2004, according to an ABC News poll, 49 percent of voters said they trusted only George Bush to protect them from terrorism, compared to 31 percent who trusted only John Kerry. Of the 49 percent who trusted only Bush, 97 percent voted for Bush, thus accounting for 48 percent of his 51 percent total.

The 2006 election was dominated by Iraq (according to a Greenberg Quinlin poll, 41 percent of voters said Iraq was the No. 1 priority), but the second-highest priority was protecting America from terrorism, which ranked No. 1 for 22 percent of voters. These so-called "security voters," broke 74 percent to 24 percent Republican, thus creating an 11-point headwind for Democrats to overcome on other issues.

If the threat of terrorism doesn't make you take notice, then these new numbers will. According to a new national poll conducted June 11-14, 2007, by Peter D. Hart Research:

• If voters are asked who they would vote for Congress if an election were held today, 46 percent say Democratic and 31 percent say Republican -- twice the margin the Democrats held in November 2006.


• When voters were asked who they would vote for if they were voting on who would protect them from terrorism, the Democrats' 15-point advantage completely evaporates.


• Voters are more concerned than they were two years ago about a terrorist attack in America: In July 2005, 48 percent of voters said another major attack was "very likely;" today, 57 percent say it is "very likely" and an additional 32 percent say "somewhat likely."


• When asked to rank the importance of issues, Iraq ranks first, with a mean ranking of 8.1 on a 10-point scale, but Protecting America from Terrorism is a close second at 7.9 -- ahead of education, healthcare, taxes and the budget, and far ahead of global warming.


• When asked if Democrats have given too much or too little attention to various issues, 30 percent of voters say the Democrats have given Iraq "too much attention," and 37 percent say "too little attention." But when asked about "protecting America from terrorism by strengthening our homeland security," 9 percent of voters say Democrats have paid "too much attention," while 51 percent say "too little attention."

Voters think Democrats are emphasizing Iraq appropriately, while ignoring homeland security, but the issue is theirs for the Democrats' taking. After all, the Republicans only have the illusion of security to offer.

For example, 15,000 chemical plants in the U.S. store large quantities of hazardous materials. According to the EPA, there are 823 chemical facilities located near population centers where an attack on a single plant could cause 100,000 to 1 million casualties. One would think that a party built on security would address this issue. The Republicans did. They changed the way the EPA measured the impact on local communities, reducing the number of plants that could kill more than 100,000 to only 123. Then, the administration worked with the then-Republican Congress to proposed security assessments of these dangers, but let the chemical industry do the measuring of how safe the plants actually are. The result? Chemical plants in backyards across America that remain as unprotected and unmonitored as they were before 9/11.

Airline security has been improved somewhat by inspection of passengers, and Americans now have the safest shoes in the world, but less than 5 percent of the packages loaded on the plane in the cargo container is screened. For $4 billion a year, we get long inspection lines, only to get on planes with cargo where a consumer tracking number is the only means of security.

Cargo containers have been described as the most effective nuclear weapon delivery system ever invented, but almost six years after 9/11, only 5 percent of the nine million cargo containers that enter American ports each year are screened. One-hundred percent of containers could and should be screened, as the 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project recommended. Instead, the Bush administration created a Byzantine classification system of cargo containers that label a small percentage as "elevated risk." They screen these, put out a press release, and the rest go untouched.

See more stories tagged with: terrorism, democrats, gop, polling

Guy T. Saperstein is a Democracy Alliance partner and past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »