The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Monday, July 26, 2004
The "ABB" party
WSJ's Opinion Journal has an excellent column today about the "Anybody but Bush" party. Even though instructions have reportedly gone out to tone down the "Bush bashing" at the convention this week (not sure Al Gore has it in him...), the real trick is going to be convincing the country that its agenda really is like Bush's agenda for the most part, except they will just "do it better". What they don't want you to know is more problematic:
Yet for a party that believes it is the vanguard of history, Democrats seem awfully cautious about their ideas. To the extent that they're hawking any agenda at all this year, it is watered-down Clintonism. And late Clintonism at that, after welfare reform had passed and impeachment had reunited Bill Clinton with his party's liberals. Mr. Kerry has surrounded himself with familiar (and often capable) Clinton Administration faces, and his political calculus seems to be to campaign as someone who'd bring back the 1990s without the you-know-what.
Democrats remain the party of government, with more spending for every perceived problem but a claim to "fiscal conservatism" because they would raise taxes to reduce the deficit. They are still the party of income redistribution, through taxing high-income wage earners, and increasingly through the promotion of lawsuits. Al Gore's 2000 theme of the "people versus the powerful" has returned in the guise of John Edwards's "two Americas." The party has become somewhat more protectionist on trade since the 1990s, and it remains firmly liberal on the culture.
If any new Big Idea lurks, it is probably national health care, though even this dares not speak its name. Mr. Kerry's proposal amounts to a huge new taxpayer obligation ($653 billion over 10 years, by the Kerry camp's own reckoning), but it is disguised in large part as a federal subsidy for business in return for covering all employees.
Where this back-to-the-Clinton-future strategy is most open to challenge is on national security. After 9/11 it is impossible to return to the holiday from world history that was the 1990s. Yet the Democrats are remarkably mute on how they would confront the largest threat to American national security since the Cold War. Their most notable hawk--Joe Lieberman--was routed in the primaries.
To his credit, Mr. Kerry has said he won't cut and run from Iraq, but he says precious little else other than that he'd somehow persuade the U.N. and France to help. Good luck with that. As a political matter, the betting seems to be that Democrats can get away with saying little because voters will simply blame Mr. Bush for any new terror attack or more trouble in Iraq. Look for Democrats to repeat the words "strong" or "strength" a few thousand times this week, a mantra in lieu of policy.
The article's premise is correct in that this party has been doing nothing BUT bashing Bush since Inauguration Day, and any American who has been paying attention knows it. For them to pretend during this scripted love-fest for a willing media that they suddenly have found civility and positive campaigning is as full of propaganda as any Michael Moore film.
Yet for a party that believes it is the vanguard of history, Democrats seem awfully cautious about their ideas. To the extent that they're hawking any agenda at all this year, it is watered-down Clintonism. And late Clintonism at that, after welfare reform had passed and impeachment had reunited Bill Clinton with his party's liberals. Mr. Kerry has surrounded himself with familiar (and often capable) Clinton Administration faces, and his political calculus seems to be to campaign as someone who'd bring back the 1990s without the you-know-what.
Democrats remain the party of government, with more spending for every perceived problem but a claim to "fiscal conservatism" because they would raise taxes to reduce the deficit. They are still the party of income redistribution, through taxing high-income wage earners, and increasingly through the promotion of lawsuits. Al Gore's 2000 theme of the "people versus the powerful" has returned in the guise of John Edwards's "two Americas." The party has become somewhat more protectionist on trade since the 1990s, and it remains firmly liberal on the culture.
If any new Big Idea lurks, it is probably national health care, though even this dares not speak its name. Mr. Kerry's proposal amounts to a huge new taxpayer obligation ($653 billion over 10 years, by the Kerry camp's own reckoning), but it is disguised in large part as a federal subsidy for business in return for covering all employees.
Where this back-to-the-Clinton-future strategy is most open to challenge is on national security. After 9/11 it is impossible to return to the holiday from world history that was the 1990s. Yet the Democrats are remarkably mute on how they would confront the largest threat to American national security since the Cold War. Their most notable hawk--Joe Lieberman--was routed in the primaries.
To his credit, Mr. Kerry has said he won't cut and run from Iraq, but he says precious little else other than that he'd somehow persuade the U.N. and France to help. Good luck with that. As a political matter, the betting seems to be that Democrats can get away with saying little because voters will simply blame Mr. Bush for any new terror attack or more trouble in Iraq. Look for Democrats to repeat the words "strong" or "strength" a few thousand times this week, a mantra in lieu of policy.
The article's premise is correct in that this party has been doing nothing BUT bashing Bush since Inauguration Day, and any American who has been paying attention knows it. For them to pretend during this scripted love-fest for a willing media that they suddenly have found civility and positive campaigning is as full of propaganda as any Michael Moore film.
