I have always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: “My God, make our enemies very ridiculous!” God has granted it to me.
– Voltaire
Jonah Goldberg has a typically biting column on Howard Dean’s comments about the “Merlot Democrats”. It’s nice to know in a time where the GOP is barely holding it together that no matter how bad things seem to get for us, the other guys still have absolutely no clue how to relate with Middle America.
The fact is that the Democrats are engaging in the techniques of personal destruction – the very same thing they accused us of doing in the 1990s (and not without some justification). The problem with that line of attack is that it tends to turn American off to politics, which doesn’t help either party. The Democrats might have a chance if they could elucidate a message other than “We hate Bush. I mean, really hate him. We hate him more than Spiceworld and rotten milk combined.” However, when the Democrats actually do present something, it’s almost always something that the American electorate doesn’t like – such as nationalizing healthcare (as if the argument that a government-run system will be any more efficient or less costly than the mess we have now) or raising taxes.
The fundamental problem with the Democrats is that they’re still decidedly out of the cultural mainstream. They’re secular, sometimes to the point of display anti-Christian bigotry. Americans are religious. The single biggest determinate of being a Republican is being married with children – while the Democrats dominate single voters. When it comes to speaking to the fears and concerns of American families on social issues, the Democrats are utterly and completely clueless. They don’t understand that family values aren’t a cover phrase for intolerance and bigotry, but a representation of the desire for parents not to have their children grow up in a society that encourages them to become self-indulgent, vapid, and sexually irresponsible. In the age of both AIDS and the decline of stable relationships, those trends aren’t healthy.
The Republican Party is seeing an increasing amount of tension between social conservatives (who support the President strongly on Miers despite her potential for being a squish on their pet issues) and fiscal conservatives (who rightly don’t see the President as one of their own). However, that’s nothing compared to the multiple fractures in the Democratic Party. Environmental activists and auto workers aren’t a natural constituency. Blacks don’t see eye-to-eye with gay rights activists. “Merlot Democrats” and the last vestiges of the heartland Democrats who haven’t already become Republicans are as different as night and day. The GOP has two main constituencies who agree on a wide spectrum of issues, most notably national defense. The Democratic Party is a mix of groups who are united at the moment by little more than their hatred of George W. Bush. By January 2009 it’s quite possible that these groups will be at each other’s throats now that the radical fringe of the Democratic Party has suddenly found themselves once again in the position to play kingmaker like they did in 1968 – and we all know how that turned out.
If anything, the recent split between the Bush Administration, Congress, and the conservative base is good for the party. Five years of political power tends to produce stagnation in a party, and we need to kick some asses in our own party before we go out and kick some other asses. On issues of spending and immigration, the Bush Administration is outside the conservative mainstream. Conservatives want restrictions on government spending and they want secure borders – and it’s about time we started putting pressure on our elected officials to start moving in the right direction.
Dean’s “Merlot Democrats” are exactly the kind of people who do represent the base of the Democratic Party. They’re the kind of people who believe George Lakoff when he posits that all the Democrats need to do is “frame” their issues with the magic words that will get the electorate to accept them. The Democrats don’t understand that the problem isn’t the presentation – a party with the slavish support of the media doesn’t have much cause to worry – but the content of the ideas. The conservative movement spend most of the last 50 years as a minority in American politics, which forced them to take ideas seriously – while the Democrats could use power rather than a concrete ideology to advance their causes. It has only been since 1980 that conservatives have been able to start translating ideology into political success – and it took the legendary charisma and leadership of Ronald Reagan to do it.
The GOP has a lot to be worried about, partially from the usual spate of Democratic attacks and partially from their own failures of leadership. However, like Voltaire, they’ve been praying for ridiculous enemies, and those prayers have certainly been answered.
“Jonah Goldberg has a typically biting column on Howard Dean’s comments about the “Merlot Democratsâ€. ”
I thought it was soft-pedaling by Goldberg’s standard. Dean is a fool to continue using the kind of shorthand he does, but I think the days of successfully connecting the Democrats with big-money interests are approaching their sunset, try as you guys may to perpetuate the myth in between advocating for even more tax cuts for the rich.
“The problem with that line of attack is that it tends to turn American off to politics, which doesn’t help either party”
If attack politics didn’t work, Michael Dukakis would have been elected President in 1988 and John McCain would have challenged Al Gore in 2000. Nothing is more effective than assassinating your opponents’ character.
“However, when the Democrats actually do present something, it’s almost always something that the American electorate doesn’t like – such as nationalizing healthcare ”
Your needle’s stuck on 1994. Americans are quickly realizing that we have no choice but to at least partially nationalize our health care system (the way every other successful economy of the world does) because our current health care system cannot be sustained in a global economy where it puts us a competitive disadvantage more than any tax policy does. The right’s only alternative to the fast-crumbling current system is more of their usual “ownership society” mirage, this time in the form of tax-exempt “health care savings accounts”, which would dramatically deplete tax revenues by offering another loophole for the wealthy, and would only offer health care until the account went dry at which point the individual no longer has health care. Some alternative. National health care definitely works to the Democrats’ advantage in the current economic climate.
“They’re secular, sometimes to the point of display anti-Christian bigotry.”
Such as? And don’t fire off names of unelected ACLU spokespersons or Hollywood talking heads. What prominent Democratic politician can be legitimately accused of being anti-Christian? Your party’s tired talking points are starting to catch up with those pesky contradictory facts.
“When it comes to speaking to the fears and concerns of American families on social issues, the Democrats are utterly and completely clueless. ”
Meanwhile, the Republicans have nothing to show for all their election-year tough talk about waging war against Hollywood. They’re too busy eliminating the estate tax, rolling back laws requiring overtime pay for workers, and letting credit card companies rewrite our bankruptcy laws in their favor to be fighting the culture war outside of biennial campaign ads. Once again, the disconnect between Republican campaign ads and Republican governance is catching up to you. The “social conservatives” are taking notice that the entertainment industry isn’t any more wholesome since you guys first starting clenching your fists demanding change. The only change you followed through with was to allow the FCC to consolidate power into the hands of the current filth-peddling media barons you claim to despise so much.
“The GOP has two main constituencies who agree on a wide spectrum of issues, most notably national defense.”
We’ll see if it sticks. The “Merlot Republicans” who consistently have the ear of the Bush administration are keeping Southern “values voters” from getting jobs rebuilding their own communities, instead outsourcing the work to Mexican immigrants for minimum wage so that Halliburton profit margins can be maximized. And it took an act of the President to make this subterfuge possible. The immigration issue is indicative of the cultural schism plaguing the right, pitting people who want to dig a trench at the border and shoot those who dare cross with the country club crowd who would gladly import 100 million Mexicans tomorrow with the knowledge they’d be able to micromanage wage rates into the dirt for generations to come. Now the Democrats have their own disparate allegiances on the immigration issue, and just about every issue, but since they currently have no power, there is little desire on the part of their activists, or of swing voters, to get to the bottom of them.
“now that the radical fringe of the Democratic Party has suddenly found themselves once again in the position to play kingmaker like they did in 1968 – and we all know how that turned out.”
Hubert Humphrey was the “radical fringe of the Democratic Party”? I guess only if you believe America would be better off if the South was still segregated, as I’m sure you would argue on the basis of “states’ rights.” Your analogy would have been at least marginally more sensible if you had said 1972. But I don’t see a single potential Democratic candidate for President in 2008 as mirroring George McGovern, with the possible exception of Russ Feingold. And even Feingold is gonna be a hard sell as representative of “the radical fringe of the Democratic Party.”
“If anything, the recent split between the Bush Administration, Congress, and the conservative base is good for the party.”
It’s very good for the party. Oh wait, you were talking about it being good for the Republican Party. Um, never mind. 😀
“They’re the kind of people who believe George Lakoff when he posits that all the Democrats need to do is “frame†their issues with the magic words that will get the electorate to accept them. ”
C’mon now, you know that framing the issue is the most important part of the debate. Who are you trying to kid? When it’s called the “inheritance tax,” two out of three Americans support its continuity. When it’s called the “death tax” two out of three Americans want it abolished. This kind of Orwellianism has played as much of a role in the ascenasion of the Republican Party as anything else, and they’ve been brilliant at it….particular when you consider that the Democratic Party’s position is in alignment with the majority of Americans almost across the board. At this point, is there any issue where the Republican position represents the majority? A party that governs in accordance with a minority of the electorate yet still maintains an electoral majority is living on borrowed time. And there is growing evidence your hourglass is running out of sand.
“like Voltaire, they’ve been praying for ridiculous enemies, and those prayers have certainly been answered.”
Perhaps. But the Dems are working on their own version of the Contract with America on issues where they’re in alignment with the American majority. If this ploy is even partially successfully, you guys stand to lose alot of seats next year in both Houses….and possibly a majority.
“If attack politics didn’t work, Michael Dukakis would have been elected President in 1988 and John McCain would have challenged Al Gore in 2000. Nothing is more effective than assassinating your opponents’ character.”
Attack politics only work when used as a precision tool rather than a blunt object. Beating the “Bush is evil” drum over and over doesn’t win anybody over- the citizenry has already made up its minds. Attack politics are useful against a still largely unknown commodity- such as Dukakis or McCain were at the time they were attacked.
“Your needle’s stuck on 1994. Americans are quickly realizing that we have no choice but to at least partially nationalize our health care system (the way every other successful economy of the world does) because our current health care system cannot be sustained in a global economy where it puts us a competitive disadvantage more than any tax policy does.”
As our auto companies have discovered, paying Canadian corporate taxes is cheaper than laying out a private benefits package. I’m a skeptic about socializing the medical system, but the truth is our system is already “partially socialized”- in fact, it’s the ridiculous Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy that is part of the problem. I wouldn’t be averse to a plan to streamline and axe much of the existing bureaucracy and tinker with a few national health insurance plans- say, universal health care for all people under the age of 18; in fact, this would probably have a greater appeal to the electorate than full-on Canadian style nationalization. And it would be better than the ridiculous “drug benefit” giveaway…
Jay: “If anything, the recent split between the Bush Administration, Congress, and the conservative base is good for the party.â€
Mark: “It’s very good for the party. Oh wait, you were talking about it being good for the Republican Party. Um, never mind. :D”
It may be good for the party, but it’s horrendous for America. As Mr. Goldberg pointed out recently, the GOP has gone from being a Conservative party to being a Populist party- pandering to social bigotry and nationalism while handing out cash with no restraint.
Being “conservative” doesn’t win elections, unless you have the charisma of Reagan- or perhaps John McCain (being “liberal” doesn’t win elections either, however, even if you have the charisma of a movie star). The GOP has sold out it’s principles for votes… the parts of the Republican platform that I liked- fiscal responsibility, free trade, government accountability and transparency, and congressional term limits- have been largely forgotten. Maybe giving the party a kick in the ballot box would do it (which is why I’m supporting the Dems until we can get some balance back in Washington), but between the changing social landscape, gerrymandered congressional districts (which both parties are guilty of) and the ineffectiveness of the current Democratic leadership (thank you Dr. Dean, thank you straight to hell), I have little hope that there will be a realignment any time soon.
Oh, and note to Mark: Lay off the buzzwords. Try to formulate arguments that don’t involve “Tax cuts for the rich” or “Halliburton”… again, beating those drums doesn’t work. Having a real plan just might. There are Dems with ideas- Barak Obama and Rahm Emanuel have a few. I don’t agree with all of them, but they’re ideas. Look ’em up. Oh, and don’t attack me. We’re on the same side. I vote for the same candidates you do, just for the same reason. I’m in that “suburban yuppie” category- I’ve simply realized that the “fiscal conservatism” of the Bush GOP is a complete load. Tax cuts for the rich? There are no tax cuts without spending cuts- while the “dig a hole and climb your way out through economic growth” plan sounds good, it isn’t so hot when your economic base is slipping out from under you. We’re running on fumes and credit cards- and when the bill comes due, I hope all my money is in foreign investments, ’cause we’re in for a world of hurt and hyperinflation.