The cliche that those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them is in vogue more than ever these days, especially as the public sours on Iraq.
Neither the circumstances, the enemy nor the stakes in Iraq parallel Vietnam. But, like that war, the current one is declining in popularity with the American people as time passes and casualties mount.
Yet Democrats see the similarity creating a no-lose situation for them. They would be wise, however, to think more deeply about the Vietnam War precedent before assuming it will return them to power.
They did lead the anti-Vietnam War movement and forced a U.S. pullout. Since then, however, they paid a huge price at the ballot box.
The anti-war fervor of that era so branded them as a political party that many Americans still feel uncomfortable trusting Democrats with the national defense. That image has been largely responsible for the party's inability to win the White House, except for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, in the years since.
The view that Democrats are squishy on defense could be reinforced if the partisan division over the Iraq war solidifies — even more so if Iraq becomes an internally divisive issue within the Democratic Party as their primary contests turn on candidates' positions on the war.
It is almost inevitable, given the voters who dominate Democratic presidential and congressional primaries, that anti-war candidates will win such battles.
Already, Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin plans to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 based on a platform of opposition to the Iraq War, brandishing his 2002 vote against authorizing President George W. Bush to proceed.
Most of the other major potential candidates — including Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Joseph Biden — voted to give Bush such power.
In the late 1960s, Democrats in Congress and the party apparatus were the first to turn on the war in Vietnam, even against a president of their own party. In fact, they eventually forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops by President Richard Nixon, the Republican who succeeded Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson.
The struggle against the Vietnam War is one that many Democrats today consider their finest hour since the New Deal.
However, it is worth remembering that the Vietnam experience led to the capture of the Democratic Party, which had been the ruling national political dynasty since Franklin D. Roosevelt, by activists who cut their teeth on the anti-war front.
Today, they and their political progeny remain in control of the Democratic Party, and any rational analysis of the ensuing period has to acknowledge just how bad for the party's fortunes that run has been.
This change in Democratic political command — remember, in 1961 John F. Kennedy said Americans would bear any burden to fight communism — led to a perception that the Democrats were, to be polite, reflexively wary of using the military to advance national interests.
That view remains in the public mind and explains the Democrats' dismal record in presidential elections. By 2008, Democrats will have controlled the White House only 12 of the past 40 years.
Carter beat the rap in 1976 because he was a former naval officer, not to mention benefiting from Watergate's huge anti-GOP political tailwind. Clinton came to power in 1992 when the collapse of the Soviet Union took the issue of national security off the front burner.
But 9-11 changed that, as shown by last year's presidential election in which Democrat John Kerry's record as a naval officer in Vietnam was thought a key plus. Yet post-election polls showed that even with his war record, wannabe commander-in-chief Kerry was regarded warily by most Americans.
That doesn't mean that Americans still support Bush's Iraq policy. The erosion of public support for the war is obvious.
Moreover, divisions over the war could split the GOP, too, although history and the shape of the party's coalition make that less likely than among the Democrats.
Moreover, there are many Democrats who have learned the lesson of history. Sen. Clinton, a likely 2008 presidential candidate, for instance, has quickly distanced herself from the most radical anti-war forces. And, thankfully, we don't have anti-war types rooting for a U.S. defeat, as with Vietnam.
So there is no unified Democratic Party position on the war — except that some lawmakers want to begin withdrawal sooner and more definitively than do others.
The unknown is whether, in their glee, Democrats will opt to relive their heady anti-war days, wrongly assuming that what is bad for Bush translates into good news for them in the coming elections.
Perhaps, but that may involve serious wishful thinking
After all, Bush will not be on the ballot again.
And even if his role in the Iraq war remains unpopular when voters go to the polls next year and in 2008, that doesn't mean that they will automatically back Democrats — especially if they continue to be seen as the non-defense party.
