Listen to the voters on Iraq.

Some 40 years ago, Republican conservatives began a long march out of the wilderness, building up a powerful political movement. Now, that march has ground to a halt in the sands of Iraq. Who would have imagined only three years ago that the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad would lead to the toppling of the Republican colossus on Capitol Hill?

Yet even as they survey the damage, George W. Bush and Karl Rove must see that, ironically, large Democratic gains in Congress could actually give the administration a handle on finding a way out of the mess in Iraq. After all its other bungles, it is not clear whether the White House will be shrewd enough to grasp it, but the handle is clearly there. There is even opportunity here for Democrats, too--that is, if they are more interested in building their long-term future than in squandering their short-term victories.

It has been apparent for months that the administration's Plan A for Iraq is not working. As early as Labor Day, it was an open secret in Washington that the White House was in a holding pattern, waiting until after the elections to come up with Plan B. The surprise is that this time, the administration couldn't keep a secret. Well before the elections, the press began focusing on James Baker's Iraq Study Group, which is conveniently scheduled to report its recommendations after the polls close, as the vehicle for Bush to change direction. Just as Lyndon Johnson dispatched Robert McNamara and brought in Washington wizard Clark Clifford when Plan A failed in Vietnam, so too, it was speculated, Bush might bid farewell to the architect of his Plan A, Donald Rumsfeld, and bring in the Houdini of contemporary statecraft, Baker, to run Plan B.

But there have always been two overriding problems for Bush in moving to a new plan (aside from having to eat so much crow). First, is there anything that the United States can do to turn this situation around, or is Iraq now hopeless? We won't know the answer for months to come. For now, we will have to wrestle with what might conceivably work. An infusion of new troops? Some experts say we ought to put in up to 100,000 more Americans for a short, defined period, quiet the place down, and then internationalize the nation-building; others say the Army simply doesn't have 100,000 new troops to spare, and has maybe 10,000 to 20,000 at most. What about embracing a loose federation? Some experts say Iraq is moving in that direction anyway; others say a federation will produce an even bigger bloodbath in cities with mixed Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. On and on the arguments go. It won't be easy for the Baker group or anyone else to settle on the substance, but somehow they must.

The second big problem for Plan B has always been the political one: How the devil does this White House persuade a disillusioned and angry public to give it one more chance in Iraq? Why would anybody possibly trust these folks to get it right the second time, after they got it so wrong before? That's where the potential Democratic victories in this election come in.

President Bush would now have an opportunity to say to the public: "My fellow Americans, I have always believed in the wisdom of the people. You were the ones who first gave me a chance to become your president and by your overwhelming vote, you returned me to this office. Now, in your wisdom, you have spoken again--this time to send a clear message that you want a change of course in Iraq. You have sent many new Democrats here to Washington to carry that message for you.

"I have heard you loud and clear and I respect what you say. Therefore, I am embarking tonight on a serious re-evaluation of our policies in Iraq and I am asking Democrats in Congress to join me in shaping that policy. Over the next month, I will ask the Democratic leadership in Congress, along with the Republican leadership, to sit down with me and my team at least once a week to hammer out a new, bipartisan approach that the country can rally behind. I am asking Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, to offer their recommendations, with an outside perspective, so that we can hear all voices and work together on a new, effective Iraq strategy.

"It is clear now that we cannot just stay on the same course, and I believe it would be equally fatal to leave immediately. So, I would ask that both of those options be off the table. Let us instead, together, come up with a new plan that has a chance of success; let us also put in place a new team to carry out that plan--a team that will enjoy the respect and confidence of people on both sides of the aisle."

Could Bush pull that off politically? It's a long shot in an atmosphere so poisoned, but it's also the best shot he has. Remember that even though Americans have become increasingly opposed to the war, a steady plurality has held that we ought to stay long enough to finish the job. Even though voters seem inclined to pull the lever for Democrats, they may not be quite ready to pull the plug in Baghdad. Talking with various groups across the country this fall, my sense is that most people think the outcome in Iraq is very important, and they would be willing to give the administration one more chance to get it right--so long as the plan is well-conceived and isn't shoved down our throats.

That's why Democratic co-authorship of Plan B would be invaluable for the president. There's a sound precedent: One year after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1946 in a Republican tidal wave, a beleaguered Harry Truman desperately wanted to provide economic assistance to war-torn Europe. To win support in Congress and in the country, Truman ensured that his economic blueprint wasn't named after him--that honor went to George Marshall--and invited key Republicans like Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, to help write the policy. Vandenberg was not only one of the Marshall Plan's major architects, but his backing helped give it the political support it needed for passage. President Bush, please take note.

But why would Democrats want to play along with Bush, and be left with the tar of Iraq on their hands? Because sometimes the country faces challenges so important that the best politics in the long run is to be constructive patriots in the short run--to ignore the siren song of partisanship, and look after the nation's needs. If Bush were to be man enough to ask the Democrats to join him and they rejected him, they might score quick points with their base. Over time, however, they would rightly be seen as narrow-minded, entrenched partisans who no more deserve the mantle of the nation's trust than those they seek to displace. It is an old truism, still true, that the best policy makes the best politics. Maybe, then, Democratic victories could provide the best hope for finding a good way out of Iraq.

David Gergen is a former White House advisor to four presidents. He currently serves as a professor of public service at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and is editor at large for US. News & World Report.