Red Dawn Vs. Blue Moon: The Democrats and Reality
THE DIPLOMAD
President Bush and the Republicans have won a tremendous electoral victory, one with enormous consequences throughout the world. In the Far Abroad, we see foreign leaders scrambling to get in line to congratulate Bush and make sure that they are on his good side. In this corner of the world, for example, we have just spent our Saturday morning lining up a phone call from the local leader to President Bush.
Let's be blunt. You don't want to be on the wrong side of an American President who has shown he will literally "pull the trigger"; a President with the solid backing of the Senate, the House, and the American people; and, to top it off, a President who has nothing to lose politically and has made clear that he will spend his political capital. You don't see this combination often -- and when you do, you take notice.
It seems, however, that the only ones not to understand these facts are our own Democrats and their moth-eaten allies in the MSM; in the canyons and hills of Malibu and Hollyweird; and in the non-fat, smoke-free, no-NRA-member latte bars of Manhattan and Boston. We've posted before on our concerns about the Democrats trashing of America and how this plays overseas. This trashing of America, of course, also has had consequences at home, to wit, the November 2 drubbing of the party of Michael Moore and Al Franken. And it was a drubbing. We've all seen the electoral maps of the Red States vs the Blue States. More impressive and troubling for the Democrats is another map we've seen (via The Opionated Bastard; and LGF has one, too) of the electoral break-down by counties. The nation is awash in red; even "blue" states are blue only in isolated pockets. It's quite instructive.
As of today, the prognosis for the Democratic Party is not good. The comments we have heard and read from the current Demo leadership and its tired allies are not encouraging and seem to show that they have not learned from November 2 -- at least, not yet. We have heard Democratic pollsters and advisors belittling the Republican victory, noting that IF there had been a shift of about 200,000 votes in Ohio, we'd have President-elect Kerry.
OK, maybe . . . but if we're going to write alternative history, why stop there? Why only a shift in Ohio? What if there had been a shift in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin in the other direction? What if Robert E. Lee had won Gettysburg? Japan had gotten the atomic bomb first? Hitler had died in WWI? If pigs could fly and birds couldn't?
This is not serious. There is, so far, a refusal -- at least in public -- to acknowledge reality -- with one notable, brief exception: House Minority Leader, lefty Nancy "Facelift" Pelosi, "We have lost just about everything that we can lose." This lucidity from Crazy Nancy, however, didn't last; in the same breath she also said, "Quite frankly, I think the table is set for us in the next election."
Hmmm . . . the "table is set," eh? Well, if you're a millionaire heiress like Pelosi you're probably used to having the table set without doing it yourself.
This attitude underlines the fact that unless the Democrats want to continue their slide into political irrelevance, they need to take a good hard look at their party's leadership, its campaign style, and, above all, what it hopes to represent. The Democratic Party did not "just" lose the Bush vs. Kerry battle. It, as Pelosi admits, "lost everything," including its Senate leader. And this is not a fluke; since about 1980, the Democratic Party has been on a steady downhill slope -- one that accelerated, ironically, during the Clinton years. If this continues, we will soon have a one and a half party system (if we don't already) with the Republicans holding 3/4's of the nation, and the Democrats relegated to shrinking pockets in the northeast, northern California, and a couple of urban zones in the mid-west.
This is not a good scenario for American democracy. The Republican Party does not have all the answers for America's problems and challenges. America needs vigorous debate and realistic options on a number of issues: the role of America in the world; federal vs. state powers; tax reform; deficits; immigration; health care, and so on and so forth. The Democrats should contribute to that debate in a positive and relevant manner. They are not, and do not seem preparing to do so. Instead they utter nonsense about never nominating another candidate from Massachusetts or the northeast; looking for another Clinton-type southern governor; finding somebody who has seen a WalMart, etc. This is condescending nonsense. In the 21st century, Americans won't and don't vote for or against a candidate based on where he or she was born and raised. Americans are drawn to a candidate's character and message; what the candidate genuinely represents. Kerry wasn't defeated because he was from Massachusetts; he was defeated for being a fraud with a confused and insincere message. Given his history of treason and vacillation, the majority of America's voters did not trust him with the nation's security in a time of war. A couple of "hard" speeches and six months of flag-waving didn't fool most Americans -- it certainly didn't fool our military who overwhelmingly voted for Bush.
We will leave it to others more qualified to discuss domestic issues. We want to offer a few thoughts to the Democrats on foreign affairs.
Foreign policy is a legitimate area for debate; the GOP has no lock on foreign policy wisdom. Some of the greatest successes of our foreign policy came under Democrats: defeat ofthe Nazis; NATO; Marshall Plan, and a host of others were Democratic ideas which relied on bipartisan support. The Democrats over the past 35 years or so, however, frame the foreign policy debate with the underlying assumption that America is not a force for good, but one for evil. The hopeless Jimmy "Dueling Banjos" Carter epitomized this approach, but even the "moderate" Bill Clinton "apologized" to Central America for our policies there -- policies which, despite strong Democratic opposition, defeated Soviet and Cuban efforts to dominate the region and install puppet regimes. Central America is free thanks to America; we should celebrate, not apologize. In this most recent campaign, the party danced to the tune of the Howard Deans, Michael Moores, and George Soros; a steady beat of America as the cause of the world's problems.
That is a formula for disaster for the Democrats and for America. As we have said before, the trashing of America by the Democrats will have real consequences for real living and breathing Americans. It encourages our mortal enemies and feeds their belief that they can defeat us at home. Debate about foreign policy must start from the premise that the USA -- this will sound simplistic -- is the good guy. The debate must focus on how best to use our enormous military, economic, political, cultural, and intellectual power to further our nation's interests and values. Above all, the debate must remain within well-defined boundaries when our troops are in harm's way. To have the Presidential candidate of the Democrats call the liberation of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" will demoralize and cost the lives of young American soldiers and marines. The Democrats cannot cheer on -- as Michael Moore openly has -- the thugs trying to kill our servicemen, diplomats, and citizens. The Democrats cannot hope for disaster to overwhelm our foreign efforts. They cannot repeat what they did to America in Vietnam. If they do we all will suffer, including the Democratic Party.
All of us who voted for Bush should wish for a revitalization of the Democratic Party. We must hope that the good people will take back the world's oldest political party from the lunatics who now control it. We need that party to rejoin America and provide worthwhile options. Otherwise, they will only win once in a Blue Moon. |
