Posted on 11/04/2004 9:09:27 PM PST by RWR8189
resident Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.
Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.
So what should the Democrats do?
One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.
Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.
But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.
Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.
In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.
What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.
It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Paging Dr. Goebbels....
Some say, "Death to the radical!
He's way out of line."
Some say, "Praise be the miracle;
God sends a blessed sign."
That's from an old Michael W. Smith song, one of my favorites. It's about Christ, and of course I'm not comparing Bush to Jesus, but whenever I hear the left brand someone on our side a "radial" I think of it, and almost take the accusation as a badge of honor.
Well, at least he's not bitter.
Krugman knows where his bread is buttered, and its locus is on the Upper West Side. The guy gave up any pretense of objectivity some time ago, deciding it was more lucrative to became a male Maureen Dowd, albeit not as easy on the eyes.
"I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them."
...if not, we at the NYT will manufacture them....
LOL!! This is so fun....the article is dripping with anger.
Want to highlight this:
"I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them."
Read: NYT will INVENT more "scandals".
I love seeing the Propagandist Media dig their own grave....
LOL, great minds think alike, see my post #9!!
I am sure the publisher of his textbook will find the manuscript smeared by teardrops.
S'long, Kruggy. I'll miss you like the deserts miss the sun.
Its stuff like this that shows me that liberals learned nothing on Tuesday. Its almost amazing how much hateful screed has come out of the NY Slimes since the election, a paper that is supposedly the leading in the country.
Krugman and the rest of the Dinosaur media are pretty irrelevant."
But like the duck billed platypus, they're damned funny to watch.
HAAAAA1 There is that.
Another I am soooooo much smarter and superior to you and you willllllll be sorry for not listening to me. Hey wait, why are you laughing? Column by Krugman
Yeah, great minds is right, but hey, the NYT is so friggin' transparent now, we ALL had to say it. That Krugman, wow...words escape me...I just wish they'd escape him.
Does the NYT print any REAL news at all anymore? I am being totally serious in asking this question. It's become like a really bad tabloid, makes the Natinal Enquirer seem newsworthy.
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.