Posted on 01/31/2004 5:07:16 AM PST by NYpeanut
It seems some Democrats are these days blinded by fury, steering off the leftward cliff. "Gore Won in Florida!" bellows the Democratic National Committee's Terry McAuliffe; Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wonders aloud if the president knew about 9-11 beforehand; and the mob clamors to burn (oil services provider) Halliburton at the stake for the unforgivable sin of charging for its services.
Good grief, what ails these people? Never mind all the ballot reviews proving Gore would've lost whatever the decision of the courts to which he went running. Surely, they can't believe they'll ever recapture either the White House or Congress (which fell in '94 without a black robe in sight), with the politics of resentment, demonization and paranoia, those mainstays of the lunatic fringe.
My theory is this: What's driving the party's strident wing is denial — not that Gore lost, but that the pivotal reason he lost, Clinton fatigue, was their own damned chickens come home to roost. Why else can they not get over it?
Character does matter, eventually. Bill Clinton, "Nixon of the liberals," is a type that Max Nordau (1849-1923) termed "the highly-gifted degenerate." Such a person "will employ his brilliant facilities quite as well in service of some grand object as in the satisfaction of the basest propensities."
For Democrats, it's the mother of all hangovers. For years they excused Slick Willie's "peccadilloes," keeping two sets of ethical books. Suffering charges of hypocrisy and cynicism, they pawned their credibility in defense of a man whose associates and appointees were convicted of felonies in unprecedented numbers, who worshipped the most amoral expediency, lied under oath, abused and maligned women ("bimbos," "blackmailing tramps," "trailer-park trash"), and generally disgusted even those who opposed his impeachment.
They called it inexcusable — then excused it. With the electorate closely divided, the loss of moral high ground was just enough. Bush squeaked in.
No wonder they'd rather blame the Supreme Court — or Ralph Nader — or anybody but themselves. If only they'd disowned the "big creep," if only the Senate had convicted him, making Gore the incumbent, it's unlikely their worst nightmare — tax cuts, environmental policy reviews, partial-birth abortion bans, conservative court appointments and pre-emptive wars — would be happening today. Now Bush appears headed for re-election. A lightweight, they said. No wonder they're still crying three years after it's all over.
And what can this raging negativity give the Dems to run on in 2004? The morally awkward position of opposing the liberation of Afghans from the medieval Taliban, or Iraqis from the Butcher of Baghdad. Disingenuous claims that tax cuts didn't really stimulate the economy. Kyoto environmentalism rejected by the Senate, 95-0.
Al Gore's loss was not the only damage done to the party by years spent accommodating Clintonian sleaze. More crippling is the resultant habit of hunkering down in "spider-hole(s) of denial," to lash out with character assassination and accusations of right-wing conspiracy. This is Clinton's last, most destructive legacy — and the formula for perpetual minority status.
Jim Robinson had an excellant post last week in which he detailed the issues on which Bush ought to be able to get better immediate results than the specific Dems and while I might quibble with him on several of his points, the soundness of his general analysis, at least at this point, does not play in the electorial count.
Bush has two large problems. One is the Herbert Hoover problem--continuing public pronouncements that the economy is great are not convincing when most of America knows it is not. Economic policy is made to favor Wall Street at a time when much of America is not prospering. Many individuals who are not prospering are in what would be usually viewed as a part of the historical Republican constituency and they won't vote for Bush again.
Bush's second large problem is not having been honest with the American people on the national security considerations that led to the invasion of Iraq. The administration "maybe this, maybe that" (WMD; Al Queida; Saddam evil; etc.) is not why Iraq was invaded. The administration decided early on that it would not reprise the Liberal errors of the 1930's and let the Moslem enemy get sufficiently organized and funded to become a serious problem. Iraq was the easiest and most obvious initial target (after Afghanistan); and the return on success has been very good. The substance of the decision is perfectly defensible but it requires the administration to lay out a description of the real enemy (Moslems) which it does not want to do because of short term domestic political considerations.
Coupled with the poor supply, training, and support of US troops, Iraq which should be a domestic positive is turned into a political negative.
Combine two serious problems with a number of secondary issues: The Republican base opposes open borders with Mexico and any form of amnesty for illegals; favors control of federal spending (not increases in National Endowment for the Arts); and forceful action (instead of using the interim appointment only for Pickering, Bush should have appointed all the filibuster court nominees) on judges.
The combined impact of these issues, particularly economic policy, so far, trumps Mr. Robinson's sound analysis of why any Democrat is worse in the short run for all Conservatives. In an environment where Republicans can hope to control the Senate and probably the House, a replay of the Clinton administration does not look as bad as four more years with Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.