http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-if-democrats-had-a-national-security-debate/article/2578661Byron York: What if Democrats had a national security debate?
By Byron York (@ByronYork) • 12/17/15 6:07 PM
The Democratic presidential field, such as it is, gathers for its third debate Saturday, in Manchester, N.H. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine it were devoted entirely to national security.
The Republican debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night focused almost exclusively on security and foreign policy. The CNN moderators had not originally billed the debate that way, but after Paris, San Bernardino, the Islamic State and more, that's what it became.
The GOP candidates were happy to go along, and the debate was an extended exchange on who would be tougher on radical Islamic terrorism.
Maybe some candidates went too far; things got so heated that Rand Paul, the lonely non-interventionist, listened to some tough talk from Chris Christie and said, "I think if you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate."
But even if some Republicans overdid it, there's no doubt that world affairs, and particularly the threat of terrorism, are pressing concerns this political season. Just not as much among Democrats.
Bernie Sanders, for example, has not been able to hide his annoyance that questions of terrorism and security have imposed themselves on his campaign. Sanders prefers to talk about corrupt billionaires, universal healthcare, and evil super PACs, but troubling world events keep happening.
Earlier this month, Sanders appeared in Baltimore for a discussion of economic inequality and the Black Lives Matter movement. Before Sanders talked to reporters, his press secretary warned, "Don't ask about ISIS today."
Of course that didn't work. So Sanders told the assembled journalists, "You want to ask me about ISIS? We will talk about ISIS. But what I have said … is that obviously ISIS and terrorism are a huge national issue that we have got to address, but so is poverty, so is unemployment, so is education, so is healthcare, so is the need to protect working families. And I will continue to talk about those issues."
That is not a man who wants to talk about national security threats.
Hillary Clinton, as a former secretary of state, is more comfortable discussing terrorism. But she, too, sticks more to domestic issues — in part because that's what her base voters want.
Recently Time's Joe Klein traveled with Clinton to New Hampshire. At a town hall in Salem, Clinton opened the floor early, and there were dozens of questions from the audience. "You might wonder how many [questions] concerned the topic of the moment," Klein wrote, "the need to rethink national security in an era when the terrorists have switched tactics and are attacking low security targets — theaters and restaurants in Paris, Christmas parties in San Bernardino."
The answer was none of them. Instead, Klein reported, the questions were about: "Genetically modified food. Climate change. Gun control. Whether Exxon Mobil suppressed information about carbon pollution. Voting rights. Mental health. Student loans. Immigration (pro-family preservation, not border control). Preserving social security and Medicare. Taking care of veterans (with the implicit assumption that veterans are victims of the military-industrial complex)."
Anyone not in the room might find it astonishing that in the midst of highly publicized terror attacks around the world and in the United States, not a single Democrat in the New Hampshire town hall brought up the subject. But that's what happened.
The polls support Klein's observations. A new Washington Post-ABC survey asked Republicans and Democrats which issues are most important to their vote. For Republicans, terrorism was the first concern, put at the top by 38 percent of voters, with the economy in second at 29 percent.
Among Democrats, the economy was the top concern, with 38 percent, followed by healthcare, with 19 percent. Terrorism ranked third among Democrats' concerns, with 17 percent.
Clinton and Sanders are simply accommodating their voters.
Of course, Democrats have discussed national security a bit; their second debate took place the day after the Paris attacks, and CBS moderator John Dickerson began with the subject. Among other things, the candidates talked about why they will not call radical Islamic terrorism radical Islamic terrorism. They talked about global warming as a national security threat. They re-litigated votes to authorize the war in Iraq a dozen years ago. But they were eager to move on to other topics, and about a third of the debate — the day after Paris — touched on security.
None of that is to say that jobs and the economy are not hugely important topics — for years, they have been the voters' top concern, and might be again if the world situation settles down. But national security is vital, too. That's why Republicans devoted an entire debate to it. You'll never see Democrats do that.
