Skip to comments.No Surrender ("Bush Did Not Win...")
Posted on 11/05/2004 6:17:28 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
President 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.
It would never have occurred to me in a million years that what America needs is an economics textbook written by hysterical socialist whack-job Paul Krugman.
Not in a million years!
It could be because MA's marriage rate (marriage per 1,000 people) is quite low in the first place, so it will give us lower divorce rates. Same applies to out-of-wedlock birth rates.
It worries me that there is not one conservative on the horizon that we can tap for our candidate in 2008. That is what we need to work on: making the Republican Party more conservative, not less
Taking this as true I suggest that the rural poor in their South are the reason, unlike the liberal blue states their first choice isn't an abortion.
That's cuz gays don't get married.
blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.
Uh, want no part of those folks, they kill their babies.
Dear Mr. Krugman:
Thank you for giving me a good, hearty laugh with that vile, wretched, vomitous diatribe you call an editorial! You are a pathetic shred of human debris and I hope this crushing Republican victory didn't harm your ego too much! Keep the articles coming! They make excellent kindling.
Paul Krugman needs xanax.
Helen is still pissing and moaning about Iraq.
For your viewing pleasure, I present her latest diatribe of leftist blabbering:
All you had to do was put a *KRUGMAN ALERT* on it and I could have just skipped right (no pun intended) over it and not barfed my breakfast.
Put this man in charge of the democrat party!
This could be the 3rd term the Gipper never got...
That's because they murder their babies before their born.
Without 9/11 we would have unemployment under 5%, airlines would be prospering, oil would be about $35, there would be no "Iraq quaqmire" and Bush would have won in a landslide.
Oh please, don't let him know what you think. He just gets excited that he gets email. People like him are constitutionally incapable of thinking they might be wrong, so better to let him think no one reads his tripe, then feed his dillusions that he's crusading against some vast right wing horde.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term.........
Sure you don't, freak. Move to France and call it a day. And also, it is PRESIDENT Bush, Not Mr.
This is excellent. Not only do people like this not understand, they are incapable of understanding. I foresee a future for the national Democrat party much like that of the California GOP if they follow this guy's advice.
What Krugman really should have written:
"I feel like a flea on a dirty cur's butt. Oh, oh. Here comes the TP."
Keep up the good work. :)
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.