Why would Smith make a pitch for pragmatism in the midst of such a searing cauldron of purist Bush hatred? "I want to replace George Bush as president every bit as much as they do," he explains, in reference to Seattle lefties. "It's how best to go about doing it that is critical. We need to get the base fired up and we need the people in the middle. And the people I have to say that to are exactly the people at that rally in Seattle."
Though voicing their Bush hatred may be cathartic--and largely justified--liberal-left activists must temper their anger and reach out to fence-sitting moderates if they really want to beat Bush, Smith believes. While some Democrats and Republicans argue that energizing the base and increasing turnout by making razor-sharp distinctions is the key to electoral success, Smith holds fast to the view that it will take both liberals and moderates for Dems to win in 2004, and too much liberal venting risks turning off many of the less ideological swing voters the Dems need.
There is evidence to support his position. A July poll by former Clinton pollster Mark Penn showed that even among Democrats moderates outnumber liberals, 39 to 35 percent, and found that voters clearly prefer a moderate candidate over a liberal one.
In that sense, too much Bush bashing could actually help Bush get reelected, Smith says. "A lot of [Democrats] supported the Iraq war resolution, supported some of the tax cuts, supported No Child Left Behind, who want to beat Bush," he contends.
A co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition in Congress, Smith has emerged as a leading defender of the moderate Democratic approach. In an October 27 New Republic article by Michael Crowley, "Blind Rage," he was quoted criticizing his liberal congressional colleagues for becoming so caught up in emotional anti-Bush rejectionism that they fail to articulate any positive vision, particularly on issues of national security.
There is no question that opposition to the Iraq war has galvanized Democratic activists, who so far seem determined to use Iraq as a litmus test for party orthodoxy and a symbol of Democrats' toughness to stand up to Bush. But most Americans were thrilled to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, Smith points out. Moreover, he adds, the decision to go to war is now long past, and instead of arguing about whether invading was a good idea, Democrats need to develop a message about winning the peace.
As Smith puts it, "We're over there, so what do we do now? We have to have a policy--something beyond '[Bush] screwed up, he screwed up, he screwed up.'" And, he asserts, blanket antiwar sentiment tinged with anti-Americanism is not an appealing policy post-9/11: "That's not a viewpoint that is going to win the presidential election next year."
So what's the right policy? Substantively, it's not that different from the liberal view. First, Smith calls for Dems to show a muscular commitment to international engagement. "We need to show we are not neo-isolationists," he says, and that extends from backing a strong defense to nation-building, including spending money in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Second, Dems should differentiate themselves by arguing that American security is enhanced by working with international institutions. By not doing so regarding Iraq, Bush has put the nation at risk. As Smith says, "Once the U.S. gives a middle finger to the rest of the world, it's hard to come back and ask them for help." And finally, Democrats should place the blame for foreign-policy miscues squarely on the president's shoulders.
It's mostly a question of tone. "There's one guy who's in charge, and the buck stops with him," Smith says. "We can make that case in a civil and polite manner, not by frothing at the mouth." Smith pauses, before adding, "As justifiable as that may be."
