WASHINGTON -- In recent weeks, as often in the past, many key Democrats have contributed importantly to American national-security debates. They have been trying to increase funding for homeland security efforts, prodding President George W. Bush to remain multilateral in his approach to Iraq even as they support his basic goals and his strong leadership on the issue, and rightly criticizing the president for an uncertain North Korea policy. For the good of the party and the country, they need to keep it up.
It has not always been so. In 2000 and again 2002, the Democratic Party suffered serious setbacks in large part because it underrated the importance of national-security issues to the American electorate.
In the 2000 presidential race, Vice President Al Gore lost the election in Florida after having done his utmost to avoid discussion of national-security issues during the campaign on the grounds that American voters did not rank them highly on their list of top priorities. This despite the fact that Florida is home to several military bases and nearly 2 million military veterans (second only in veteran population to California) -- and despite Gore's impressive credentials in the national-security arena.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.