Temperament Wars (Dems are nice, GOP is mean)

The New York Times Magazine ^ | 07/06/03 | JAMES TRAUB

[Pokey78]

Some time very soon, President George Bush is expected to sign a $400 billion bill adding a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare -- and he is sure to be flanked not only by Republicans but also by Democrats, perhaps including that arch-liberal, Senator Ted Kennedy. It's an image that is apt to drive former President Bill Clinton around the bend. The Democrats have, in effect, agreed to hand to Bush precisely the kind of politically precious legislative victory on health care that the Republicans went to any lengths to deny to Clinton back in 1994. Could it be that the Democrats are constitutionally incapable of acting as single-mindedly -- as ruthlessly, as unfairly -- as the Republicans? If so, is this the kind of Christian virtue that leads to being eaten by lions?

The difference between the two parties is not simply ideological. It is also temperamental. For all the talk about the tainted legitimacy of Bush's Supreme Court-inflected victory in the 2000 election, the Democrats have never sought to discredit Bush's presidency. Clinton, on the other hand, won fair and square, but many Republicans treated him as an illegitimate figure from the outset, and from the time of the 1994 election, which brought the Republicans to power in both houses and made Newt Gingrich speaker of the House, the G.O.P. practiced a politics of holy war that culminated in the impeachment proceedings.

Republicans have been bitterly complaining recently about the filibusters Democrats have mounted to block two of the president's nominees to the federal bench. But this obscures the historical facts. During the last six years of Clinton's presidency, the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee blocked fully one-third of Clinton's nominees to the federal appeals courts. When the Democrats regained control of the Senate in 2001, however, party leaders agreed to rapidly process all but the most controversial candidates in order to fill the vast backlog created by Republican obstruction. The judicial vacancy rate is now lower than it was even in Clinton's first two years, when the Democrats controlled Congress, and the bench is, of course, increasingly Republican and conservative.

Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government? Maybe Democrats are just nicer, but a more philosophical view is that liberals are committed to, are in fact bedeviled by, ideals about process that do not much preoccupy conservatives, at least contemporary ones. Liberals put their faith in such content-neutral principles as free speech, due process, participatory democracy. Is that too lofty? Then maybe we should say that today's liberals, unlike today's conservatives, don't believe in any particular set of ends ardently enough to blind themselves to the means they are using to achieve them.

This became patent during the endgame of the 2000 election, when Al Gore refused to sanction a range of promising legal approaches and Joe Lieberman felt called upon to concede the fairness of a critical Republican claim about the validity of absentee military ballots. Several months later, I asked Lieberman how in the world he could have handed that weapon to his opponents, and he said, ''In spite of the fact that on the other side they were being partisan, there was no reason for me not to say what I saw.'' It's impossible to think of any instance in which the Bush-Cheney ticket acted comparably.

Gentlemen like Joe Lieberman are inclined to think that voters will think the better of them for their fair-mindedness. But is that really so? Many voters were plainly put off by Newt Gingrich's relentless personal and political assaults on Clinton; and Clinton, the one Democrat willing to sacrifice practically anything (possibly including his principles) in the name of victory, brought the party briefly out of the woods by running against Republican extremism. But Gingrich is no longer the face of the G.O.P. And while George Bush may well be the most conservative president in American history, he is more popular than, say, his conciliatory father was for most of his presidency. Maybe voters like politicians who know what they stand for even if they don't agree with what they stand for. (Or maybe they just like George Bush.)

There are Democrats who would like the party to get down off its moral pedestal and start fighting dirty, or at least dirtier. The journalist Eric Alterman, author of ''What Liberal Media?'' has complained that liberals need their own Fox News, their own talk radio -- their own unleashed attack dogs. Put Michael Moore behind a desk, and watch the right-wingers squeal. The problem is that many Democrats would squirm as well. It is just a fact that the Republicans are now the party of passionate convictions, while the Democrats are the party of grave reservations. The Democrats are essentially devoted to tempering the harm caused by the Bush administration, which is not much of an agenda at all, though it certainly makes a virtue of moderation. Ruthlessness is just not in the party's DNA.

It's an odd reversal, if you think about it. The Republicans used to be the party of the First Methodist Church, and the Democrats of the great unwashed. Now the Republicans are the hellions, and the Democrats are the ones you want to bring home to mother. The G.O.P. is making such inroads among younger voters for the same reason that Fox News is making inroads among younger viewers. We live in a culture that values brazen certainty and loud conviction, no matter how wrongheaded. Pity the Democrats, stuck with the wrong set of virtues.

[squidly]

We are virtuous and pure, they are devious and corrupt. Seems like the writer could have just summed it up with that sentence and spared the reader the torture of reading all that.

[Ronin]

For all the talk about the tainted legitimacy of Bush's Supreme Court-inflected victory in the 2000 election, the Democrats have never sought to discredit Bush's presidency...

What universe is this guy living in?

[martin_fierro]

Oh, right. Dems are regular sweethearts.

[alwaysconservative]

And while George Bush may well be the most conservative president in American history, he is more popular than, say, his conciliatory father was for most of his presidency. Maybe voters like politicians who know what they stand for even if they don't agree with what they stand for. (Or maybe they just like George Bush.)

I love it when they scratch their heads and can't come up with the real reasons they are losing! What? They can't call us Nazis and have anybody believe them anymore? They can't stifle free speech and delude themselves that they stand for the will of the people? They can't lie and get away with it anymore because of the internet? Awwww, shucks anyway!

[sabe@q.com]

When, at any time, was Bush losing in the vote count in Florida?

[hemogoblin]

Time for one of these, I think

[RichInOC]

How'd you forget Paulie's old podna, the Snake?

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for not posting a pic of the carvile snake ... Democrats are the party of abortion slaughter. It's their ritual of choice, don'tcha know.

[Cicero]

Only the New York Times could imagine that the party that supports abortion and sexual perversion as the two most important and nonnegotiable planks in its political agenda is as nice as motherhood and as sweet as apple pie.

"Hi, mom! I just voted for partial birth abortion!"

[winner3000]

(Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government?)

They also forgot the Florida supreme court's attempt at running roughshod over Florida's election laws during the recount, New Jersey's Supreme court running roughshod over that state's election laws (to replace the Torch on the ballot way after it was legal to do so), Not allowing Bush's judges to come out of committee when they were in power and essentially changing the required vote on judges from 50% to 60% (by flibustering), etc. How can we also forget the predictable refrain come election time that Republicans want to starve children and the homeless, reinstate slavery, and throw grandma down the stairs. Democrats are sooooo nice and only play by the rules!

[goldstategop]

LMAO! Most liberals are full of seething rage, unrelenting hatred, and deep to the soul contempt for President Bush. They're unhinged by two election losses in a road and they've veered Left. About the temperament wars, the truth is exactly the reverse of the headline. But who care these days about the truth? All we know is Republicans are heartless, right-wing, son of a bitch terminators bent on wiping out the human race.

[tet68]

Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government?

Lala land, I read no further.

[muawiyah]

Because of the Dem's adherence to the doctrine of slaughtering the unborn, they are due no respect whatsoever, neither in politics, nor in business, nor in social encounters.

Glad to see that attitude is moving into Congress otherwise some of those wishy-washy guys in the Rep leadership would be giving away the show to "my good colleague" as Trent Lott used to call them.

Never give a Dem a break.

[sweetliberty]

Are these the faces of "nice" people?

.

[ImphClinton]

They are also ignorant people.

They all believe in in communism yet they are too stupid to realize that. Look at their friends all communist/socialist/ditcatorship countries.
They never met one they didn't like.

[Tall_Texan]

They can't be any more delusional. Let's get a few things straight:

The reason Ted Kennedy is willing to stand with the president on things like the education bill and prescription drugs for medicare is because they are LIBERAL BIG GOVERNMENT bills.

If you were to compare Democrats *handing* a win like this to Bush, you'd have to compare it to Republicans *handing* Clinton a win on welfare reform, a bill that the left felt horribly about.

As for Democrats being nice guys and allowing the military vote to count in Florida in 2004, well, gee, I guess the military *ought* to have their votes count shouldn't they? After all, when Democrats bleat that convicts and illegals and nameless dimpled chads should have the right to vote, you'd think our men and women overseas could possibly be afforded the same right. And they think this should count in the Democrats' favor?

Then, as to obstructing judges, the difference here is that the Republican *have* a majority of the Senate with which to get these nominees passed. That's not the same thing as when Republicans were the majority party and blocked Clinton nominees. The Democrats are trying to exercise the rights of the majority, while not holding a majority. Therein lies the difference.

I truly wish the Republicans were as mean, nasty and devious as the moral midgets at the New York Times would have you believe. If they did, maybe we could have some conservative measures accomplished rather than liberal measures. It's beyond time they stood up and bared their teeth instead of being the Rodney King battered spouses they act like most of the time.

[ozzymandus]

New York Times magazine?? What's that? Wasn't there a newspaper with that name that went bust after repeatedly being caught lying?

[boris]

"Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government? Maybe Democrats are just nicer, but a more philosophical view is that liberals are committed to, are in fact bedeviled by, ideals about process that do not much preoccupy conservatives, at least contemporary ones. Liberals put their faith in such content-neutral principles as free speech, due process, participatory democracy. Is that too lofty? Then maybe we should say that today's liberals, unlike today's conservatives, don't believe in any particular set of ends ardently enough to blind themselves to the means they are using to achieve them."

In other words they are committed to the notion that the ends justify the means.

Also they are masters of incrementalism. They will take a 'baby step' offered up by feckless Republicans trying to win the approval of the press. This then becomes the status quo for the next outrage. In small steps our liberty is lost. Notice that Dem disasters are never reversed; only expanded/extended. A prime example is the Legal Services Corp., a pseudo-governmental organ which should have been defunded long ago. NEA. DOE (education). Etc.

--Boris

[sweetliberty]

"the Democrats have never sought to discredit Bush's presidency"

Say what??? Are these people living on the same planet? Don't they get the same news as we do? Don't they see the rhetoric constanly questioning Bush's legitimacy?? What unholy cretins these RATs are!

[alnick]

the Democrats have never sought to discredit Bush's presidency.

I'm absolutely speechless.

[sweetliberty]

"the bench is, of course, increasingly Republican and conservative."

When did this happen?

"Liberals put their faith in such content-neutral principles as free speech, due process, participatory democracy"

Liberals themselves are content neutral...all fluff, no substance.

"George Bush may well be the most conservative president in American history"

Open borders, CFR, the biggest and most substance free education bill to date, and now Hillary Care lite. Now I can't help but wonder on just what they're basing this outrageously absurd supposition.

"There are Democrats who would like the party to get down off its moral pedestal and start fighting dirty"

If they get down any lower they will come out in China.

"Democrats are the ones you want to bring home to mother"

If I brought home a democrat my daddy would disown me.

Mr. Traub needs a serious adjustment in his his meds. He has had a complete break with reality.

[sweetliberty]

[MHGinTN]

Yes, he's a hideous thing ... but Mary Matlin lives with him! I guess that makes her a saint, or something.

[ladyinred]

Sometimes I find myself expecting Rod Serling to step out of his grave and just start saying, "Next stop, the Twilight Zone."

[Ronin]

I truly wish the Republicans were as mean, nasty and devious as the moral midgets at the New York Times would have you believe. If they did, maybe we could have some conservative measures accomplished rather than liberal measures. It's beyond time they stood up and bared their teeth instead of being the Rodney King battered spouses they act like most of the time.

Well said, Sir!!!

I most sincerely agree!!!

[section9]

What a horrible piece of writing. What a simple pile of ... .

Now it's instructive to look at this as the way a liberal looks at other liberal Democrats. Understand that liberals never think of themselves as ruthless, yet they have no problem lying, using FBI files, and any other means necessary to sieze and hold power.

Again, there's a lot of whining implicit in this article. It tells me something else: this is not a party that is self-confident. Ours is. We believe in something. Our heroes are people like Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush the Younger. Who do they have, and what do they stand for, save for a belief that the levers of power rightfully belong to them?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[sweetliberty]

"I guess that makes her a saint, or something"

I'm more inclined to think it means she has serious "issues."

[sweetliberty]

" this is not a party that is self-confident"

This is not even a party that is self-aware, which is ironic since they are the party that believes in therapy for everything.

[WOSG]

Boy what a biased article!

"The Democrats have, in effect, agreed to hand to Bush precisely the kind of politically precious legislative victory on health care that the Republicans went to any lengths to deny to Clinton back in 1994."

More like ... The President has decided to pass a Liberal Government-expanding program that the Republicans in Congress in the mid-1990s resisted. Bush is delivering piece-meal health-care coverage expansion, a Democratic party plank, in bits and pieces.

For Bush and Republicans, this is less a victory than a co-option. On the other side, Democrats are acting very hypocritically by refusing to compromise on issues they would be willing to compromise with a President Clinton, but are not hypocritical enough to vote for programs they have promoted for years.

So we have the spectacle of a Goverment-expansion being voted favorably by Republicans and *opposed* by House Democrats on a near party-line vote.

In fact, it was only because Clinton wanted health-care as an 'issue' that he didnt push more earlier. That, and the ineffectual way Clinton managed some legislative proposals, even popular items managed to get lost in the shuffle.

It may be that Bush is just a little bit too good, for the good of Conservative Republicans. He gets things done, and is ending gridlock on issues that have been gridlocked for years.

[WOSG]

Ruthlessness is just not in the party's DNA.

Proof positive this man is lying.

[harpu]

"Could it be that the Democrats are constitutionally incapable of acting as single-mindedly" NO...however, it could be that the democrats are just plain "eat up with the dumbass!"

[sweetliberty]

"but Mary Matlin lives with him! I guess that makes her a saint, or something"

I just had a horrible thought. Presumably she actually sleeps with him. I cannot imagine having that creature crawl up in the bed with me!!! Great, now I will have nightmares.

[RichInOC]

"Wheah's mah preciousssssss?"

[gov_bean_ counter]

Now having flashbacks of the movie "V".

[Morgan's Raider]

You fergot the "Bullshit Alert".

[MHGinTN]

And they've produced a really cute child!

[gov_bean_ counter]

And they've produced a really cute child!

Don't have to guess who it favors, eh?

[Morgan's Raider]

And they've produced a really cute child!

Rermember, Damien was a cute little critter, too.

[MHGinTN]

Now I'M going to have nightmares!

[ladyinred]

ROTFLMAO! That is the funniest picture I have ever seen in my life! And that is saying something on FR!

[ladyinred]

(Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government?)

WHAT the ----? Is this for real?

[Fawnn]

This piece is another example of the liberal agenda of repeating a lie enough times so it begins to sound like and become accepted as the truth. ("It's all about sex." "We want every vote to count." Etc.) Thank goodness -- and all that is nice about Republicans, most people are wising up and not swallowing this BS anymore!

[sauropod]

"The Democrats have, in effect, agreed to hand to Bush precisely the kind of politically precious legislative victory on health care that the Republicans went to any lengths to deny to Clinton back in 1994."

Constitution? What Constitution?

[sauropod]

"It is just a fact that the Republicans are now the party of passionate convictions, while the Democrats are the party of grave reservations."

Uh-huh.

[sauropod]

"All we know is Republicans are heartless, right-wing, son of a bitch terminators..."

I've been called worse ;-).

[No Dems 2004]

A weird article. I wouldn't have put it this way, though I guess he does have a couple points.

[SkyPilot]

and the Democrats are the ones you want to bring home to mother........

.....So they can ravage her, bite her lip, slash her tires, kill her cat, threaten the other children, use th IRS to audit her, call her a homophobe, have your trial lawyer friends tell her she "really asked for it", lie to her, and tax her for it.