Tough Is Back

The Republican candidates for president don’t disagree much on policy, but they diverge greatly in tone. Jeb Bush is conciliatory, Marco Rubio is inspirational, and Scott Walker is tough. “Tough" is about to become the most important quality for a Republican nominee.

Republicans won’t reject the Iran treaty because they want war with Iran. They will reject the treaty because they believe that a less feckless negotiating team—and a team more confident of American purposes and power—would have secured a less abject deal. Candidates will be judged according to how strong they seem. Candidates who have shown weakness in past negotiations—as many Republicans feel Rubio did when he negotiated with Chuck Schumer over the “Gang of Eight” immigration deal—will pay a penalty.

Hillary Clinton Will Discover That Incumbency Also Has Disadvantages

To date, Clinton has benefited hugely from running to succeed a president of her own party. She’s acceptable to almost all factions of a united party. She’s been permitted to avoid taking stands on divisive issues. She’s been buoyed by a rising economy. Now she’s about to experience a disadvantage: She’s about to be held politically responsible for somebody else’s decisions.

At first that disadvantage shouldn’t be too painful. Democrats will mostly support the Iran deal, if not for reasons of ideology (“negotiation is always better than confrontation”), then out of loyalty to Obama. Over the 16 months between now and the election, however, Iran will have many, many opportunities to remind even Democrats of the downsides of this deal—starting with the aid about to flow to every Iranian-backed terrorist and thug regime in the region and the world. The presumptive next leader of the party that sent those funds flowing will have to justify and defend an agreement that almost certainly will look even more one-sided in 2016 than it looks today. And she will have to defend it, or else risk dividing her party over the next consequence in the series:

Liberals Will Be Energized

The heyday of liberal activism and organization was the second Bush administration, when Democrats as conservative on domestic issues as Howard Dean and Wesley Clark could work with MoveOn.org in opposition to the Iraq war. As the Iraq issue faded, so did liberal activism. Groups like Occupy Wall Street tried to revive the old spirit, but they lacked a clear agenda—and anyway looked too radical and generally odd for the mainstream of their party.

Only last month, centrist Democrats handed liberal Democrats yet another indignity: defeat on the trans-Pacific trade deal. Aside from parking their votes with Bernie Sanders, liberals could do little but grumble. Now suddenly comes an issue that liberals will care about a lot more than they ever cared about trade. This issue even offers an individual to demonize: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Democratic base has turned increasingly hostile to Israel. Democratic elites have been more cautious. The debate over the Iran deal will unify both over an issue that promises peace while also conveniently rebuking Netanyahu and isolating Israel. Democratic elites can reassure themselves that the isolation of Israel is an unfortunate side effect of the deal; the Democratic base can straightforwardly enjoy it—and all can come together over an issue that probably won’t too badly alienate undecided voters, unlike such previous liberal causes as reducing incarceration or extending amnesty to undocumented immigrants.