Will Syria hurt Democrats in 2014 elections? Campaign chief weighs in.

Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on Tuesday predicted that a potential US strike against Syria would have limited impact on the 2014 elections. Here's why.

Michael Bonfigli/TCSM
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Steve Israel speaks at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013.

Although public opinion polls show a majority of Americans oppose President Obama’s call for military intervention in Syria, the official charged with regaining Democrats' control of the House says the issue will not play a major role in the 2014 elections.

“2014 is not going to be a referendum on Syria. 2014 will be a referendum on solutions,” says Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). “2014 will be a referendum on who is willing to get things done and who clung to partisanship and extremism,” he said Tuesday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters.

His remarks came as Syrian state television and the Interfax news agency reported that Syria’s leaders had accepted a Russian proposal to turn over their chemical weapons, thus possibly averting a military strike for which Mr. Obama is seeking congressional approval.

"It is just so fluid right now,” Representative Israel said. “If the Russia deal is a real deal, I think this evaporates fairly quickly. I can't imagine voters waking up in one year and two months saying, 'I'm going to cast my vote based on Syria.' ”

But even if the latest developments do not lead to a diplomatic resolution and the US takes targeted military action, Israel predicted limited impact on the elections. "[I]f the strike is swift, in and out, focused on degrading and deterring the chemical weapons capability, I just don't think that many people are going to be thinking in November of 2014 about the debate on a very limited military operation in 2013,” he said.

A number of recent opinion polls show Americans by a significant majority oppose US military action in Syria. For example an Associated Press poll, taken Sept. 6-8, found that 61 percent of Americans want Congress to vote against authorization of US military strikes in Syria. About a quarter of Americans want lawmakers to support such action, with the remainder undecided.

A member of the Democrats’ leadership team in the House, Israel was careful to note that on the issue of Syria, he was speaking only for himself. “The DCCC has absolutely no opinion, no calculation. We are emphatically neutral on this issue. Our job is to win elections, not to shape foreign policy and national security,” he said.

He faces a considerable challenge in trying to realize Democratic control of the House. Republicans currently hold 233 seats, while Democrats have 200. There are two vacancies.

Israel, a seven-term congressman from Long Island, argued that a congressional vote on whether the United States should take military action in Syria should be decided on the basis of conscience and should not be seen as a "for" or "against" the president.

“This shouldn't be about supporting the president," he said. "This should be about, Does this fulfill your values and priorities, does this fulfill what you are hearing, what is happening in your district? And does this fulfill the policy imperatives that you have on national security?”

Still, Israel could not resist taking a shot at House Republicans, who overwhelmingly oppose Obama on the issue of Syria. “What has fascinated me more than anything is this: Does anybody truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and asked the House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they're opposing what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me the most,” Israel said. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.