America in the Balance

HATRED IS NEITHER AN AGENDA NOR A

POLICY: IT IS A FORMULA FOR FAILURE

by

Ken Eliasberg

I knew even before the election of George Bush in 2000 that the Left no longer had a policy that was either sound or realistic. In general their position, after even a simple examination of their statements, was that U.S. foreign policy could only be arrived at through consensus, i.e. via the U.N. Whether this was the result of the new approach to globalism or just the fear of being disliked, I could not tell, but one thing was clear - under their approach the U.S. was not free to determine what was in its own best interests, let alone act on it. On the domestic front, it seemed equally clear, that the Left wanted socialism. They would never cop to this, of course, but even a superficial examination of their stance—from the New Deal through the Great Society on forward—was that a cradle-to-grave welfare state was at the core of their agenda (if one could piece together an agenda from the threadbare clichés re their concern for the “little guy” ).

Those were the good old days for the Democratic Party—the days when it could be argued—if only lamely—that they stood FOR something. Now they stand for nothing other than the pursuit of power. Consequently, as oft noted, they stand against anything and everything that George Bush proposes—even if it would be good for America. On reflection, make that particularly if it would be good for America. Because George Bush might get credit for an accomplishment, and they can’t let that happen. If it did, it might lead to the election of another Republican, and, if we keep electing Republicans, it won’t be long before the Democratic Party could be in deep trouble. Ergo, their hatred of George Bush—in my opinion, a decent guy who is doing a very decent job—is palpable. They are in a rage over this man. And their hatred finds expression in the most outrageous ways. For example, they accuse him of being the most partisan president in history.

Hell, I wish he was. On the contrary, he has leaned over backwards to be accommodating to the Dems. For example, he gave them steel tariffs, prescription drugs (Kennedy), Education reform (again, Kennedy), McCain-Feingold (a legislative catastrophe), has, in effect, endorsed McCain-Kennedy on immigration and other smaller matters - most, if not all, of these measures were not merely wrong but, more to the point, were calculated to antagonize, if not alienate his own base. In additon, he was generous in his praise of the Clintons and reached out to Ted Kennedy, inviting him to the White House to view a picture dealing with Kennedy’s brother Jack It seems the nicer he is to them, the more they hate him.

Then there is the customary assault that Dems routinely launch on either the intelligence or character of any Republican president. Eisenhower, you will recall, was a dummy, Reagan was an amiable dunce (per Clark Clifford), Bush I was a non-entity, and Nixon was evil. Heck, they didn’t even like Abe Lincoln; he had been referred to as a monkey. In George W. Bush, it all comes together for them—he is both stupid and evil. To which I respond, aren’t you guys lucky; would you rather that he be brilliant and evil?

What they don’t see is that George Bush is not their problem; their absence of any policy at all—i.e. they don’t stand for anything; they stand against everything—is their real problem. From time to time, they seem to pick up on this and you’ll get a statement from the Carville-Greenberg axis that we need to come up with something. Or Evan Bayh, a reputed moderate, will point out why the country doesn’t trust the Dems with National Security, but the waters of this moment of recognition close quickly over these voices, and the shrill noise of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, etc. rise once again to the surface, drowning out even the hope of rationality. They just don’t get it—Republicans are not their problem; they are their problem. HATRED JUST ISN’T AN AGENDA. You can’t formulate policy on the basis of your antipathy to the other guy. You remember that old Walt Kelly statement in Pogo—we have met the enemy, and he is us. Maybe, as lefties are always telling everyone else, it’s time to look in the mirror.

Perhaps what it really points up is what I really believe to be the problem—the Democrats are bereft of policy; they are morally, intellectually, and philosophically bankrupt. And the Clintons were the perfect couple to both point this out and to make it a reality, i.e. lead them right over the edge. Take a look at what happened to the Democratic Party after Bill Clinton was elected and while we were enjoying 8 years of unprecedented prosperity (which was not the result of anything that he did, although he will certainly take (and probably get) credit for it. But even were that true—i.e. he was the rooster whose crowing made the economic dawn come up—why then have we had virtually nothing but Republican victories ever since he and his wife took office? Isn’t this worth pondering, particularly to people who want to be to restored to power? And they won’t be by either spouting absurd accusations at Bush, or, worse yet, by pretending to be Republicans. The Democratic Party must stand for something, and they need to figure out what that might be.

If the Democrats were not so filled with hatred over being out of power, they might be in a better position to start asking the right questions. And, if they did that, who knows, they might get some of the right answers and get back in the game.

And, that would be a good thing for the country—a vibrant and dynamic 2-party system—we need it. Why? Because when one party becomes completely unhinged as the Democrats have become, it creates a vacuum which the other party tends, to its own detriment, to fill. What do I mean? Republicans have drifted Left since Democrats have gone over the edge. We now have Republican big government and Republicans spending like they were Democrats. This isn’t good for anyone, nor, more to the point, is it good for America. As Jack Kelly put it in his August 21^st column for the national edition of the Washington Times, “I don’t think it’s possible for me to think less of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, than I already do. But I would never compare him to monstrously evil people such as Osama Bin Laden. Yet the