|
Liberalism: the democrats' noose
April 19, 2003
If I lead this column
by announcing there are profound differences -- irreconcilable
differences -- between conservatives and liberals, I'll feel as
foolish for stating the obvious as the editors of Time should
have felt when their cover proclaimed a few years ago that boys
and girls are born different. But tell it to Al From.
From is the self-styled
centrist Democrat who played a key role in positioning Bill Clinton
as a moderate during both presidential elections and is once again
urging his party to shift to the center. At a recent meeting in
Raleigh, N.C., he told Democratic leaders that to win in 2004
they had to resist the "temptation" to move to the left
and "present themselves" as strong on defense and national
security, fiscally responsible, tough on crime and as the party
of economic growth.
Temptation? I can
think of more alluring vices than liberalism, but then again,
I'm not a lefty. And "present themselves"? That's an
interesting choice of terms. Note that From didn't advise his
brethren merely to be themselves. He knows that won't work, just
like it probably wouldn't have worked with Bill Clinton. To get
elected president liberals have to mask their liberalism, especially
now.
Many Democrats don't
see it this way. They are counting on 2004 being a reprise of
1992 with George W. Bush following in his father's footsteps to
squander his Gulf War popularity and lose the election by neglecting
(or failing in) domestic policy. And they're doing everything
they can to help him along: obstructing his judicial appointments,
diluting his growth-oriented tax cut, insisting on ratcheting
up domestic spending and more.
There are many factors
working against the actualization of this Democratic déjà
vu. The obvious ones are that Bush 43 is not his father -- he's
a scrapper, he's resolute, he's decisive, and he won't underestimate
his opponents -- and this time the war is not going to end as
quickly. The War on Terror will continue, even if we don't take
direct military action against any other regimes between now and
2004.
The people, including
many Democrats, strongly trust President Bush to guide us through
these perilous times. They haven't felt this good about America
since Ronald Reagan was in office. I just got an e-mail today
from a guy who said, "George Bush has inspired me to try
to find ways to volunteer and help out the Republican Party."
Remember, too, that
Bill Clinton broke the mold. Democrats have no candidates with
the acting skills to fool a large plurality of the people most
of the time, with such canards as "This is the worst economy
in 50 years."
But there's another
factor helping to handicap 2004 in favor of President Bush. The
War on Terror on all fronts -- domestic, Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere -- has operated as an X-ray into the soul of the national
Democratic Party, freezing them in their real image. It has brought
the worst out in them -- their true inclinations having been nakedly
exposed for all to see. Try as they might -- or as Al From would
prefer -- they will be hard-pressed to reverse their image in
time for the election. As of now, they aren't even trying.
And their true image
isn't very pretty. It's largely out of phase with the overwhelming
majority of American voters. The visible face of liberalism has
become bitter and nasty. They are irredeemably angry over Bush's
election -- having convinced themselves the U.S. Supreme Court
stole the election when in fact it merely apprehended the Florida
Supreme Court in the act of stealing it, then made them put it
back. They need therapy over this -- they just can't let it go.
Their mainstream has
been overtaken by extremists, many of whom are so malicious, so
petty, so oddly rooting, it seems, for the administration to be
embarrassed in Iraq. No? Then, why were they so quick to predict
quagmire? So anxious to prove the military plan was failing? So
unwilling to believe Iraqis were happy to be liberated? So quick
to focus instead on the few negatives there, such as the looting,
and blame America for them? So unwilling to hold their venomous
tongues even with our troops in harm's way on foreign soil? So
hopeful we'll find no WMDs? So compatible with Michael Moore,
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins?
For Democrats to get
back in the hunt for 2004 they will have to do more than hope
for a sluggish economy. They'll need an immediate, complete and
credible makeover. Don't bet on it.
|
|