WASHINGTON: Iraq is emerging as the wildcard issue of election 2002, with Democrats nervously watching a growing debate over whether the United States should launch a war to oust President Saddam Hussein, fearful that it could shift attention away from the economic issues that now dominate their agenda.

History suggests that the issue of possible war with Iraq will have little influence in the outcome of November’s midterm elections — particularly if there is no military action before the election. But in a post-Sept 11 environment, history might not be a reliable guide. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart puts it, the “push-pull of American politics in 2002 has been between patriotism and pocketbook.”

With public concern over pocketbook issues rising, Democrats have been optimistic about their chances of gaining House and Senate seats in November. Now they are assessing what impact possible military action — or even an intensified debate about it — might have on voters’ attitudes.

Democratic candidates say they have begun to hear more about Iraq from voters in the past few weeks. “I get the question all the time now,” said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. “People are worried.”

Maryland state Sen. Christopher Van Hollen Jr. (D), who is running for the US House in Maryland’s 8th District, said Iraq has become a regular topic of discussion at informal gatherings with voters the past two weeks. “It’s been one of the first two questions I’ve been asked,” he said.

This apparent interest in Iraq, which Van Hollen and Gephardt said comes from Democratic voters skeptical about what President Bush might be planning, has not yet made it a front-and-center issue in the 2002 debate. Other Democrats said that, in their discussions with voters this month, the economy and corporate accountability remain far more significant.

But concern expressed by some voters coincides with recent Senate hearings chaired by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., that received testimony from a wide range of experts on the implications of trying to oust Hussein. It also coincides with cautionary rhetoric from some Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats face a dilemma on Iraq. The call for more debate comes mainly from Democratic leaders and those with an eye on running for president in 2004. Rank-and-file candidates appear more interested in keeping voters focused on the economy.

Gephardt, whose support for military action to oust Saddam sounds more tempered today than a few months ago, acknowledged that the kind of full-scale debate he favours may overshadow the economic issues Democrats believe have turned the election in their direction. But he said it is essential for the administration to make the case for going to war, rather than endure constant discussion through leaks about how such a war would be fought.

“Right now we’ve got ‘how’ before ‘why,’ “ Gephardt said. “It is a security issue and a terrorism issue and so it’s an important issue, and we’ve got to deal with those issues as well.” But he added, “Right now the focus is on unemployment and investors’ rights and all the problems you see in the business community.”

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., among the most hawkish of Democrats on trying to get rid of Hussein, said, “I honestly haven’t thought about” the campaign implications of a national debate on going to war. But he said he doubts that economic issues will be supplanted “unless there’s actual military action taken before the election.”

Republican and Democratic strategists point to 12 years ago as one guide to interpreting the current dynamics. In the fall of 1990, the administration of Bush’s father had begun a major buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. At the time, two-thirds of Americans supported the administration’s policy.

But Republicans lost nine House seats and one Senate seat in that midterm election, as growing pessimism about the economy and direction of the country dominated public attitudes. Exit polls from 1990 showed Iraq was eighth on a list of nine issues that influenced voters, with 6 per cent saying it was the most important reason for their vote.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff called 1990 “the best evidence we have that Iraq is not likely to be a key issue” in this year’s congressional elections.

That gives Democrats only modest consolation as they look to the final 80 days of the campaign. They know that only in the past two months has the focus shifted toward domestic issues more favourable to the Democrats.

If Iraq rises on the public agenda, Bush likely has considerable latitude, given public confidence in his handling of the response to the terrorist attacks after Sept 11 and his generally high ratings on the ‘war on terrorism’.

That confidence in the president might not transfer to Republican candidates in November, however. More likely, said Republican and Democratic strategists, voters will continue to see national security as a presidential responsibility, and they will cast their votes for Congress based mainly on domestic issues.—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service.