ThoughtsOnline -
Question: what ails the Democratic Party today?
Answer: what do protests against the Vietnam War have in common with protests against the Iraq War?
I know I've answered the question with a question. But you need to know the answer to the second question before you can understand my answer to the first question. And, the answer to the second question is that both protests were built on frauds hoisted upon the American people.
I will never be convinced that protests against the Vietnam War were driven by anything more than a bunch of spoiled kids afraid that the war would force them to give up their sheltered and pampered lifestyles. They were afraid of being drafted (whether or not they were sent to Vietnam, being subjected to military discipline and crewcuts are not what the little dears were looking forward to). They were afraid of having to mingle and compete with the uneducated rubes who actually wanted to be in military. They were afraid that military spending would force cuts in their dear social programs (guns over butter), forcing them to give up their dreams of having society continue to support them and their non-productive lifestyles. They were afraid that a successful war would discredit the Marxist ideologies that were so in vogue on college campuses across the country. They were afraid that a successful war would, as was the case after World War II, result in society fawning over those who served, promoting the veterans into positions of authority, and relegating those who sat on their student deferrments into secondary and subservient roles.
And, being the smart kids that they were, they knew that they wouldn't get anywhere opposing the war on these grounds, so they went looking for 'better' reasons to oppose the war. They had support from their comrades in the media and had some success in convincing Mr. and Mrs. Average American to distance themselves from public support for the war.
The same pattern holds with (most of the) opponents to the Iraq conflict. They didn't actually think Hussein was a good guy. They weren't fans of his regime. They didn't really care if there were or there weren't WMDs to be found. They didn't really care about the 'Arab Street'. They didn't care whether we did or we didn't have support from a 'real coalition'. They were driven by simpler, and less noble, motivations.
There are actually two elements of opposition.
For one group, everything centered on their opposing President Bush, about their needing to constantly attack him and his programs, about their refusing to accept the results of the 2000 and 2002 elections, their refusal to acknowledge the voters didn't pick them to lead the country. For them, it wouldn't matter what position Bush took - on any subject. Anything and everything Bush did and advocated was fair game for attack. And, Iraq, being a really big deal, served as the central point on which to attack the Bush Presidency.
For the second group, everything centered on their needing to maintain the 'legitimacy' of their anti-Vietnam War positions. They had lived the lie for so long there was no chance of coming clean now - no chance they would ever admit to being driven by cowardice and selfishness back then. Nor was there any wiggle room to devise an argument for supporting intervention in Iraq that was consistent with opposing our involvement in Vietnam. They knew their conservative critics from the 60s and 70s were watching them, looking for anything that could used be to undermine their opposition to the Vietnam War. And, they were determined not to give their bitter rivals any ground.
Now, of course, being the smart people that they are, neither of these two groups could admit that was what they were doing. As in the 60s, they needed 'better', more acceptable reasons for opposing Bush. So they went about looking for them. As in the 60s, they had support from their comrades in the media.
But their efforts came up short this time. A large part of Middle America is now comprised on those who grew up in the 60s and 70s and who are very aware of the con that the anti-war protesters pulled on America (some of them may actually have participated in the con, but have come to grips with what they did). They are very aware that the Communists in North Vietnam and the VietCong were not peaceful, but that they were murderous thugs who tortured our soldiers and killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. Today, unlike the 60s, much of Middle America is not so gullible so as to buy the arguments being peddled by the Moores, Sarandons, Streisands, Baldwins (Alec, not Billy), Mahers and the like. For younger voters, the volunteer Army removes the risk that they would ever have to die in service of their country so they could go back to their video games and downloading music files. So, the protesters arguments fell on relatively deaf ears... and Bush won re-election.
Which finally gives us the answer to the first question: the Democratic Party is driven by the architects of these frauds - and the public knows this. The Democratic Party is, in large part, comprised of the above two groups - the Bush haters and those who refuse to admit we were wrong in the 60s. There are others in the Democratic Party, to be sure, but not in sufficient numbers to drive the party (and what few of them there are are shrinking). And America refuses to back a fraud. So until the Democratic Party is able to show the rest of the country that they have undergone an exorcism, that they have rid themselves of these elements, they just won't be trusted. They just won't win.
thoughtsonline.blogspot.com |
