The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

As the presidential campaign unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear that the 2008 elections will be fought on rather different ground than the recent national elections from 2002 to 2006.

For the first time in recent years, voters affiliated with both parties are telling pollsters that the economy rather than the war in Iraq is their most important issue. This has both good and bad implications for both parties.

From the Republican point of view, the downgrading of Iraq from the number one issue is a generally welcome development, since it is at least in part reflective of the general success of the surge in reducing violence and casualties, both American and Iraqi, and restoring a considerable measure of stability. It certainly represents a landscape considerably changed from the one in 2006, when the lack of security in Iraq gave the Democrats pretty much a slamdunk issue in many districts.

Of course, the concern about the economy is not a particularly good thing for Republicans, either, since the party has controlled the White House for the last seven years and is the natural target of blame when things go wrong. At the present time, there are a number of economic hiccups, although no one knows if they are serious enough to lead to a recession. Among the problems are the subprime mortgage crisis, an extremely week dollar, apparently depressed consumer spending and high energy prices.

While the Republican candidates for president have so far generally favored free market and longer term solutions to the current economic problems, President Bush has indicated that he will propose a stimulus package in his January 28 th State of the Union address. Most of the proposals are expected to involve tax reductions.

I suspect that many of the GOP candidates, not wanting to be regarded as indifferent to economic issues favoring voters, will follow Mr. Bush's lead and likely will sign on to some sort of stimulus package. A number of examples come to mind, including accelerating tax deductions for the purchase of business equipment, extension of unemployment benefits and even some sort of short holiday (perhaps 3 months) from the payment of the employee's share of Social Security taxes.

As for the Democrats, their environment has also changed. The success of the surge has made the war less of an unqualified advantage for them, although the principal candidates have been pretty much unable to modify their position (which generally favors rapid withdrawal) in light of the strong antiwar sentiment among party activists. Even with Iraq not as important as before, this could prove troublesome in the general election if the party is seen as weak on national defense.

On the other hand, if the economy does go into recession, it will clearly be an advantage to the Democrats, and may make the contest somewhat similar to 1992. In that year, a bad economy led to the ouster of President Bush's father, despite his considerable foreign policy successes in the Gulf War and the dismantling of the Soviet empire. (As the Democratic slogan went, "It's the economy, stupid.") For the present, the Democratic candidates have vied with each other in proposing stimulus programs. For example, Hillary Clinton is proposing $70 million in emergency spending plus an additional $40 billion in tax rebates should the economy deteriorate further.

Most United States elections center on domestic rather than foreign policy issues and 2008 figures to revert back to the usual situation. It will be interesting to see how the parties react to the shifting environment.