The Democratic Party of the United States is in decline. That is a simple fact, yet one which the Democrats continue to deny, at least in public. This, frankly, risks an out and out tailspin, but that is the way of desperation, I suppose. Of course, the Left - which is presently in firm control, if not command, of the Donkapalooza which spews forth such notables as Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Al Gore - has at its reach the means to change its direction and fortunes, and in private the Democrats are trying to do just that. It must be admitted that, so long as people like John McCain and Arlen Specter and Bill Frist are the Republicans' notion of national leadership, the keys to driving the national policy are very much up for grabs. Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats have repeatedly shown that they do not wish to take grasp of such opportunities, when that opportunity would require them to be realistic.
Two recent articles in the press abundantly show what I mean. The first one was an article The American Prospect by Justin Logan titled "Mind the Gap", and the other was "Message of Misery" by Anne Kim, Adam Solomon, and Jim Kessler in The Democratic Strategist. Between them, they demonstrate an amazing lack of attention to the American public, and a continuing and serious case of denial, both of which have and will continue to prove fatal to any goal of national leadership. Let me walk you through some of their statements to show what I mean. (continued)
UPDATED 7:30 PM (see end)
First, Logan's piece. I like a man who sets out his thesis right from the start. I like Logan, therefore, because he is wrong from the very first sentence, which reads " It is becoming increasingly obvious that Democrats have a stronger grasp on national security issues than do Republicans."
Uh-huh. While I have long observed that there is a serious disconnect between the Left and most of America on Iraq and the subject of National Security, this is still a very peculiar statement for Logan to make. The Democrats made Iraq an issue in the 2004 election, remember? Considering how that turned out, one would think the Left would have got the message, but it seems not. Logan claims America is on his side - the White Flag brigade - because he claims " A recent CNN/New York Times poll showed 61 percent of Americans want to cut and run, with just 34 percent now supporting a "stay and die" policy." A few problems with that claim. First off, I could not find any poll commissioned or produced jointly by CNN and the New York Times, and I have to say I find it suspect that Logan would not cite a source or link in an online journal. And as to the question about whether we should stay or go, the most consistent poll on the subject, Gallup, clearly states that Democrats want to leave and Republicans want us to finish the job.
If Logan meant the Gallup poll, then he is not only sloppy, but dishonest. Most people want the war over, which is a natural emotion for wars, but significantly more people said they understand the President's reasons than said they understand the Democrats' position. In other words, it is simply not true to claim that most Americans prefer the Democrats' position. Logan is lying.
OK, so what Logan really means is that most Democrats are hard-line Left, and he would like to have us believe that most Americans are leaning Democrat. I found it amusing that he cited the Lieberman-Lamont primary as an example of the tide, deliberately hiding the fact that in the polls covering the general election, Lieberman is clearly leading Lamont. That can only mean that most Democrats in Connecticut changed their minds, or most Connecticut voters do not buy the Left's White Flag strategy.
With that fairy tale put to bed, I now turn to the one in The Democratic Strategist. The dream team in that article also set out their argument from the start, stating "$23,700. That is the household income level at which a white person became more likely to vote for a Republican over a Democrat in congressional races in 2004. That's $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four, less than half the median income of the typical voting household of all races, and an emphatic repudiation of all things Democratic among the white middle class. Obtaining a sustainable Democratic majority in either house will be impossible unless there is a significant change in this economic tipping point."
The problem is immediate and obvious to anyone who has ever asked someone why they voted the way they did in an election. Not once in my life, has anyone ever told me 'Well DJ, I woulda voted for the guy I thought was better-qualified, but my economic demographic demanded that I vote for the other fellah'. I mean, really, just how dependant on a class-warfare worldview does someone have to be to think that a specific economic bracket dictated election results? While it can be argued that Republicans or Democrats may be more appealing to people of a certain economic condition because of the likely effects of their recommended policies, the last several elections have been on character and security concerns, not paycheck envy. The blunder made by the team which wrote this article was in looking too closely at individual data sectors, rather than stepping back and seeing the trend overall. This team sees the Global War on Terror and the fight to reform Social Security as some kind of "clever ... trick", rather than the strike-home real-world concerns they are.
Continuing down the illusory road that class warfare is the ideal campaign strategy, the team of Kim, Solomon and Kessler (KS&K) fall even further into the foolishness of their own fairy tale. Even as they warn that "gloom and doom" won't get far with the American voter, KS&K cannot resist claiming that "Our kids are falling behind in math and science. Our middle class is shrinking. And by the year 2062 our GDP will be half the size of Burma's." Those claims can only be considered panicked assumptions at the most, and in the context of political strategy they carry the stink of deliberate lies.
Having started down that road, LS&K gain speed in their little slander-fest, claiming that the Bush Administration means " high debt, tax giveaways to the most affluent, a theocratic faith that corporate America will solve our health care and energy crises, and the growing income inequality found in our country" Even in the very next sentence, KS&K admit that " America's vital economic signs are fundamentally robust", without once considering that the President they are mocking with such little basis in reality had quite a bit to do with that economic health.
Essentially, what both articles miss, as everything I hear and read from the Left misses, is that George W. Bush has actually been successful as President. And while it would be unreasonable to expect Democrats to become just like Republicans and support them in everything, until Democrats and the Left accept that Bush has been successful, and become willing to study him with an objective mind to how they can improve in their own discussions and policies, their very hatred of Bush will continue to hold them down. I am emphasizing this need for two reasons. First, there is a need in this country for two healthy, functional national political parties, but the Democrats have got to heal themselves of this delusion and hatred of the Right. And second, since the Left has never really accepted the success of the Reagan Administration, I can offer them this advice in a pretty secure sense that they will not be mature enough to understand it, let alone accept it and correct their course.
UPDATE: Mr. Logan has replied by e-mail to my post. As a courtesy, I post his message in its entirety. I note as a prelude that Mr. Logan displays petulance, not cogency, in his argument. He also fails to note that I am the author, preferring to address Mr. Aylward instead. Thus, Mr. Logan remains as careless in his second attempt at accuracy, as he was in his initial attempt. Mr. Logans writes as follows:
"Dear Mr. Aylward:
I find it fairly misleading that you did not include the second sentence of my article (nor, indeed, the thesis) in your critical post. However, the poll I cited was only a CNN poll, not a CNN/NYT poll, so thank you for pointing that out. I think, though, you might want to set a higher standard for "lying" than that, especially since you apparently support the Bush administration.
In addition, it is going to become increasingly difficult for dead-ender war supporters to characterize opposition to an endless occupation of Iraq as "hard-line Left." As the CNN poll indicates, you'd need to call sixty percent of the American people hard-line Left in order to do so, and I don't imagine you'd want to do that.
As for the Lieberman-Lamont race, I made no statement on the drivers of current polling. (Obviously, the war is not the only issue.) I demonstrated fairly clearly, though, that to the extent the primary was a referendum on the war, Democrats were strongly against. I didn't imagine anyone would find this point controversial.
If you'd like to post this email in its entirety as an addendum to your post, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, if you'd correct your claim that I am "lying," I think that would be at least a mark of civility that is all too rare in the blogosphere.
Sincerely,
Justin Logan"
In response, I begin by noting that I chose to leave off Mr. Logan's title, as a self-proclaimed "foreign policy analyst". I rather doubt his qualifications, if his recent attempts are an indicator. I would note also, that Mr. Logan completely ducked the points of my critique, and did such a complete flip-flop that although he considered the war in Iraq the salient indicator in the primary race between Lieberman and Lamont, he now wishes to use different standards now that the anti-war candidate is clearly lagging in the present condition. That sir, is weak, and to my mind proves your dishonesty. Logan still refuses to cite the specific source, falling back limply on a vague reference to "CNN" as the source, without so much as a date for the poll, much less the address to pull up the information ourselves. I could go on, but the reader can see for him/herself what passes for diligence on the Left. Tragic, in that the debate is one-sided when only the Right bothers to prove or defend their contentions.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Commentary
Comments (13)
DJ,Excellent again... (Below threshold)1. Posted by JohnMc | August 31, 2006 11:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DJ,
Excellent again. I might twist somewhat your observation on the economic demographics. The general tendency is that once someone is in the economic position of wishing to retain their home, possessions and general well being they tend to vote Republican. We humans tend to loathe change that might tend upset our comfort level. Republicans tend to champion the opportunity lever to permit the greatest number of us to get to that state of affairs. Democrats foster extractive methods and redistribution schemes to retain people on a subsistence level of life.
That being said, when it comes to individual candidates the economic argument becomes weaker. Likeability, community standing, ethical bearing tending to be far ahead of economics. Though I would point out that the Gipper used '...are you better today than you were 4 years ago.' with devasting effect agains Carter. The exception that proves the rule maybe?
1. Posted by JohnMc | August 31, 2006 11:43 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 11:43
2. Posted by Richard L. Kent | August 31, 2006 12:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You miss one other major point: since 1973, the Democrats have aborted themselves at twice the rate as Republicans, and used contraceptives at twice the rate. A recent Wall Street Journal stated that if you took 100 Democrats off the street, you'd find they had 147 children. 100 random Republicans would have 208 children.
The result is that, since 1991, the number of new
(18 year old) voters are 2:1 Republican. Do that long enough, and the Democrat party becomes extinct. Which is what is happening.
Paul VI wasn't stupid after all. Democrats, you reap what you sow--or don't sow. Demographics are destiny.
2. Posted by Richard L. Kent | August 31, 2006 12:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 12:59
3. Posted by Jim Addison | August 31, 2006 1:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Quite right, D.J. Even if the Democrats pull out wins this fall, it will only be a blip in their steady downward slide.
Why? For one thing, they haven't had a coherent new idea since Ted Kennedy's proposal to nationalize health care, which came in 1972. For another, they have run off most moderates and all conservatives, leaving a core of supporters far to the left of, well, sanity.
And lastly, of course, they can NEVER be trusted with our national security.
Gateway Pundit shows them to be defeatists, while Hugh Hewitt makes the case for their being appeasers instead.
3. Posted by Jim Addison | August 31, 2006 1:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 13:33
4. Posted by Reality Community member | August 31, 2006 2:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Two opinions in conservatives do not the truth make. I would suggest you perhaps look at every single major poll taken during the past six months -- in which Democratic support continues to rise like a wave -- and then just admit the ugly [for Republicans] reality. . . that Democrats are going to control at least one house of Congress in November.
Just as Bush today continues to say things are great in Iraq even as the news ticker below him announces yet another massive bombing in Baghdad, yours is but another delusional post that seems to willfully ignore the pummeling Republicans are going to receive.
As for the Republicans and their ideas -- you've had the glorious chance to run all three branches of government simulataneously, and it has been an utter disaster. A massive, un-ending war that we are losing and for which you have no plans other than "stay the course", which is not a plan. Record deficits and sky-rocketing debt. Illegal domestic spying. Failures to protect our homeland (since all the money is going to paying for the failed Iraq effort). Corruption throughout the Republican leadership. On and on. This is all yours, folks. You own this, so be proud of it. This collosal clusterfuck the Bush Administration has been -- this is yours. Until November, any way.
4. Posted by Reality Community member | August 31, 2006 2:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 14:33
5. Posted by P. Bunyan | August 31, 2006 3:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Secular Socialist Community Member: "you've had the glorious chance to run all three branches of government simulataneously"
No reality in that statement. When we get 60 non-evil, non-socialist senators, this will be true. Right now the reality is that socialist-democrats are blocking many of the good things that can be done.
SSCM: "has been an utter disaster"
Economic properity, finally fighting and preventing terrorism, low taxes on the poor and middle class, more home ownership for minorities, low unemployment. Yup that's a disaster if you're a secular socialist. Universal poverty is their goal and anything else is a disaster.
SSCM: "A massive, un-ending war that we are losing and for which you have no plans other than "stay the course", which is not a plan"
Well, Bosnia was probably a bad decision, being a quagmire based on a lie and all that, but once the President made that decision, all patriotic Americans need to support it and wish for and truly want America to win and to succeed.
Oh you mean Iraq? Well that's a pretty ignorant accessment, and it's purely evil to try and distort what's really happening over there. Who's side are you on? Oh that's right, the democrats want the terrorists to win.
Is everything just peachy in Iraq? No. Are we loosing? No, not by a long shot no matter how much you lefties wish we were.
War does not fit well to the microwave society we have in America today. And I know that "reality based" people have no patience nor are they willing to do something if its slow and tedius or takes any kind of real work at all, but just because the defeat of the terrorist is not instant does not mean its not happening.
SSCM: "Record deficits and sky-rocketing debt."
Secular socialists have no understanding of economics do they? Taken as a percentage of the GDP, the picture is a little different that the dishonest one they try to paint.
SSCM: "Illegal domestic spying"
I know it bothers you lefties that you can't call your terrorist allies and plan violent terrorist acts against your country without the chance that someone from the government might be listening, but to those of us who don't support terrorism, the NSA's INTERNATIONAL terrorist syping program is a very good thing. There is nothing illegal about it as we'll soon see when a non-evil judge rules on the appeal.
SSCM: "Failures to protect our homeland"
Yup, we have terrorist attacks here in the US every freaking day... Oh wait that only happens in the left's "reality" not in the real reality.
The only failure is the failure to close the borders and the socialist-democrats are more to blame for that than anyone else.
SSCM: "Until November, any way."
Dream on nutcase!
5. Posted by P. Bunyan | August 31, 2006 3:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 15:18
6. Posted by Falze | August 31, 2006 3:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As for the Republicans and their ideas -- you've had the glorious chance to run all three branches of government simulataneously
except, of course, for the still liberal Supreme Court...I know liberals like to think 5 liberals and 4 conservatives is 'conservative control', but it's not 'reality'
A massive, un-ending war that we are losing
provide evidence for your 'reality'. the last significant plot was disrupted by our side, thanks to profiling and electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.
and for which you have no plans other than "stay the course", which is not a plan.
No, the 'course' is the plan, which is what we should be 'staying'. Staying the course is not the plan itself. Consider remedial language courses to better interpret 'reality'.
Record deficits and sky-rocketing debt.
And record tax receipts, don't forget that part of 'reality'. Most conservatives are livid with Congressional spending, just read this site for some examples of this 'reality'.
Illegal domestic spying.
Hasn't been any since Clinton spied on Christian groups (of course they claimed it was the constitutional right of the president). Even the much-ballyhooed recent federal judge's opinion clearly states that the NSA program is, in 'reality', an international program.
Failures to protect our homeland (since all the money is going to paying for the failed Iraq effort).
Provide evidence. While Britain, the far east, france, russian, Israel, etc have been attacked by jihadists and muslim rioters since 2001, the US has not, at least not in 'reality'.
Corruption throughout the Republican leadership.
Provide evidence. Are you referring to the fact that Bill Frist didn't do enough continuing education for his medical licence? Or in your 'reality' is Duke Cunningham part of the 'Republican leadership'? Which Republican Senate leader was it that took boxing tickets from a group that was involved in pending legislation? Which Republican Rep was found with bribery money in his freezer? Which Republican Senator's staff committed identy theft of an elected official? Which Republican house leader was fined for illegal campaign shenanigans? Which President was impeached? Which vice-president was cleared by the courts regarding their consultations? Refresh my memory.
This collosal clusterfuck the Bush Administration has been -- this is yours. Until November, any way.
So in your 'reality' the President only serves 2 year terms? You've convinced me, though...I won't vote for Bush in 2008.
6. Posted by Falze | August 31, 2006 3:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 15:28
7. Posted by andrew | August 31, 2006 3:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Failures to protect our homeland (since all the money is going to paying for the failed Iraq effort)."
This is one of the favorite Leftie talking points and some of the most twisted logic ever assembled. In their simplistic minds, the Left believes that any dollar spent on Iraq means we have nothing left over. The idea that a country can pay for domestic security and foreign military campaigns simultaneously is somehow too hard to comprehend. To the Leftist it's an either/or situation. Armored divisions and Special Forces in Iraq = no money or "resources" left over for airport security. The sheer insanity and incoherence of it all offers no deterrence to their boasting.
7. Posted by andrew | August 31, 2006 3:44 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 15:44
8. Posted by P. Bunyan | August 31, 2006 4:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Good point Falze,
I forgot to include in my fisking that the Supreme Court still has a majority of left wing, secular socialist fascist judges. For the time being anyway. I just assumed that SSCM was just referring to the house, senate, and presidency which do have "reality based" majorities.
And I forgot to comment on the corruption comment, but the old "people who live in glass houses" saying pretty much takes care of that.
8. Posted by P. Bunyan | August 31, 2006 4:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 16:22
9. Posted by Jim Capatelli | August 31, 2006 8:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I suggest you pay more attention to current events. Lieberman has lost his previous, post-primary lead of 13 points. It's now down to two, which is statistically a tie. For your information:
An American Research Group poll, conducted August 17-21, showed Lieberman with a 2-point lead.
A Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted on August 21, also showed Lieberman with a 2-point lead.
So, which is it? Do you just not keep up with the latest news or are you so fixated on your belief system that you won't allow new facts to penetrate?
9. Posted by Jim Capatelli | August 31, 2006 8:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 20:15
10. Posted by kirktoe | August 31, 2006 9:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is my favorite line from the article referenced above: "there is a growing body of evidence that Democratic voters have entirely repudiated anything resembling the Bush doctrine."
Really? Who won in 2004? This year's elections haven't happened yet. I wonder when the 'repudiation' happened?
"I would suggest you perhaps look at every single major poll taken during the past six months -- in which Democratic support continues to rise like a wave -- and then just admit the ugly [for Republicans] reality. . . that Democrats are going to control at least one house of Congress in November."
Hey Mr. Socialist, how many times are you going to fall for these polls and look like an idiot. You guys said the same thing in 2004 (and many still beleive we should have gone by the EXIT polls).
BTW, the latest polls show the Democratic generic lead SHRINKING.
You're going to be in for a long winter when the GOP maintains control in both houses.
10. Posted by kirktoe | August 31, 2006 9:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 31, 2006 21:20
11. Posted by Jim Addison | September 1, 2006 1:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just a word of warning to those who painstakingly fisk the misstatements, distortions, and lies of the moonbatty trolls: don't expect that your detailed refutations will deter these morons from posting the same talking points on topic after topic, whether germane to the thread or not.
It's what they do. You can't make them change, it's impossible. Tell the sun to leave the sky, it's just impossible. Tell a baby not to cry, it's just impossible.
11. Posted by Jim Addison | September 1, 2006 1:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2006 01:13
12. Posted by Mr. Right | September 1, 2006 1:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Excellent post, DJ!
As for the responses of Mr. Logan and the members of Reality-Challenged Community who saw fit to vomit within this thread, it's almost shameful to watch the beating such people take when they show up unarmed for a battle of wits!
12. Posted by Mr. Right | September 1, 2006 1:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2006 01:59
13. Posted by LaughingAtHippie | September 1, 2006 5:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Reality Community member", here's some reality for you: Kerry lost, and Lamont is going to lose.
Sorry about that.
Oh, wait: I'm not.
13. Posted by LaughingAtHippie | September 1, 2006 5:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2006 17:10