Posted on 04/16/2007 5:49:40 PM PDT by jazusamo
April 16, 2007 07:23 PM EST
The Democrats' overstepping of their electoral mandate began on election night, when they misinterpreted the election as a broad affirmation of liberalism instead of a protest against the lack of progress in Iraq. The American people did not suddenly, last November, decide their taxes had become too low, government spending needed a huge boost, that they wanted to pay for the destruction of human life for scientific research or that homosexuals have a right to marriage.
Nor did they sign up for Nancy Pelosi's lose-at-all-costs, cut-and-run agenda on Iraq. The American people, both Republicans and Democrats, were and still are frustrated about the war. But while Democrats are angry the war exists at all, most Americans are angry only that we haven't won it yet, or at least that media reports don't seem to suggest we're in the process of winning. Most Americans want us to win in Iraq; most Democrats want us to quit.
There are two main reasons Democrats don't understand this.
First of all, leading Democrats have a much easier time living a life of ideological isolation than Republicans do. When you're a liberal, you hang out with other liberals, you probably live in a city with other liberals and, when you turn on the television, you watch more liberals. Conservatives, on the other hand, even if they choose to spend their time with people who share their values, are still forced to live in a liberal popular culture. That is, leading conservatives can't get through the day without running into liberals and moderates. Liberals, on the other hand, can go weeks without actually listening to a conservative. Democrats are much more vulnerable to ideological overreach because of their ideological isolation. It's worth remembering that after Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide in 1972, liberal writer Pauline Kael said, "I don't know a single person who voted for him."
The lesson of the Democrats' first 100 days is that they still don't get it. Their cynical, pandering move to deny union workers their right to a secret ballot was the act of an ideological bully, not a sensible majority. Their inability to pass a minimum wage bill -- probably the most easily communicated Democrat message of all -- speaks to a fundamental lack of leadership. Their move to deny troops the resources they need to fight and win in Iraq is idiotic, to say nothing of un-American. And yet, everywhere they go, Democrats will be feted by other liberals for their courage -- all the way to a loss in the 2008 elections.
The second reason Democrats have overstepped their mandate is that they don't have an explicable agenda. In the last month of the campaign before last November's elections, their leaders were yanked from the stage, umbrellas around their necks, vaudeville style. They hid their true ideas from the public and ran simply as "Not Bush," which was enough to win. Once.
Now, however, they're trying to govern a nation foreign to them. Their instincts tell them to surrender in Iraq; that instinct is not shared by the American people. Their instincts tell them to repeal the Republicans' Medicare reform program; that program is wildly successful and coming in below projected costs. Democrats want to stick it to small businesses with labor, environmental and fiscal liberalism; most Americans work for small businesses and dislike being targeted. Democrats want to give homosexuals the right to marry and fight in the military; most Americans do not. Democrats want to open our borders to millions of illegal immigrants; most Americans do not. Democrats think it's a good idea for Mrs. Pelosi to travel to Syria and become bosom buddies with a terrorist dictator; most Americans, thank goodness, do not.
One detects a pattern that speaks to one underlying truth: Elite, insular, liberal Democrats are ill-equipped to govern the United States, because where they really want to govern is France.
Last November, Democrats ran without an agenda and thus won without a mandate. Everything they do to satisfy some liberal constituency group, every item they cross off their agenda, will simply be another nail in the coffin of their majority.
My advice: Keep up the good work.
Pelousy was elected by the people of one congressional district out of 435. She does NOT speak for me.
Should that be statement rather than a question?
This will be reported on every major news outlet! (do ya really need the sarcasm tag?)
Yes :-)
I'm not sure I quite agree with this. They want to to turn our government into something like France's. There are a number of French chafing under their government (and I'm not including the Muslim rioters). The Left has seized control there, and is working to have the same control here.
If they achieve it, expect to see the U.S.A. (the country) begin to look more like France (the country) in its actions.
To our detriment, and that of the rest of the world.
All true except one little tidbit: “all the way to a loss in the 2008 elections.”
I don’t blame DeLay for saying this, because he wants to cheer up the troops. The problem is that although the Democrats are playing a losing game, so are the Republicans.
Ever since 2004 it’s been a race to the bottom, a contest to see who can screw up worse than the opposition. The Republicans won’t win in 2008 unless they come up with a presidential candidate that the voters can unite behind.
Silly man, the Democrats have no bounds.
I agree, plus a candidate that can unite elected Repubs.
“Ever since 2004 it’s been a race to the bottom, a contest to see who can screw up worse than the opposition. The Republicans won’t win in 2008 unless they come up with a presidential candidate that the voters can unite behind.”
Correct! The dems don’t have to show they can lead or have new ideas. All they have to do is hate GW, point out his failings and they win by default!
Surely this is supposed to read. . .'Democrats are OVERSTEPPING their Bounds. . .'
NOt to be picky. . .but past time for debate. . .we need to shout it. . .and stop it. . .
Some polling seems to suggest they lost that one too.
There are times when the silent majority of Americans want action. But after a while, they want inaction, for government to be quiet and without great change.
With 9-11, America wanted a lot of action, but over time fatigue has set in, and desire for momentum has been replaced with desire for inertia.
More than anything else, the last elections were to send a message to the republicans to “stop changing everything”, and to the democrats, to “log jam”. Importantly, the democrats have no mandate for anything other than to prevent republicans from doing things.
The public wanted the republicans to stop spending money like it was water. And to stop increasing security on Americans—things like demanding book lists from libraries hurt the republicans terribly. Not only that, but they look both authoritarian and ineffective against terrorists.
The republicans also made a bad mistake by continuing to call the occupation of Iraq a “war”. The war ended in 2003 with the defeat of the Iraqi army. Americans want the “war” to be over. Had the administration called it an “occupation”, much of the pressure would have long since dissipated. You win or lose a war, but an occupation is keeping the peace; plus it can be ended at any time.
Even calling it “The War On Terror” which while good at its onset, to explain why we use military rather than police methods, should have been superseded by a more appropriate term.
Last but not least, republicans are now faced with a lack of Presidential talent, because the party has not prepared several potential candidates long ago to look presidential. They are far too willing to leave it up to individual initiative, and the last time they did this, the nomination went to Bob Dole almost by default, because “he was next in line by seniority”.
By this time in George W. Bush’s first campaign, Bush had already locked up all of the big contributors for the party, and had already begun construction of the Crawford Ranch in anticipation of needing a “Texas White House”.
We need more candidates who are that prepared and have their act together, not “Who here feels like running for President?” Hands?
Good post and many good points, thanks.
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.