The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Monday, June 27, 2005
Blaming America First as a matter of "principle"
Fred Barnes has a wonderful way of cutting to the chase: Liberals see their own country as the root of all evil; Conservatives see it as the greatest experiment in world history, and the economic engine that fuelse the rest of the planet. And they wonder why we don't trust the Democrats with the keys to power. It is really this simple: it is because the Democratic party, a party that once believed in protecting this nation even if it meant standing up to the big bullies on the block -- the party of John F. Kennedy staring down Nikita Khrushchev with the whole world holding its breath -- is dead. Some excerpts from Barnes' historical analysis of this demise:
Democrats don't have a death wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994.
The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning.
At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day," Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire."
Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security.
Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years.
In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. [...]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily. [...]
In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. [...] I
n 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats.
Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq. John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure.
Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.
Every two years, the Democrats try to dress themselves in "conservative clothing", pretending to embrace the values they in fact despise. Witness John Kerry promising to "hunt the terrorists down and kill them..." Riiight... Especially if they go into Cambodia, right John?
But in between each election they spend a majority of their time defunding the military, railing against any military interventions, and ignoring global threats in favor of social programs. Lately we've been hearing words like Nazi and quagmire and Gulag from the over-the-top hyperbolic left. If history is any judge, the Dems are once again setting themselves up for a big fall.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh really nailed it today with a comparison regarding the anti-war Democrats:
LIMBAUGH: US lawmakers witnessed interrogations, toured cell blocks, and ate the same lunch given to detainees on the first congressional visit to the prison since criticism of it intensified in the spring." A Senate delegation also was visiting this weekend, but guess who wasn't there? Senator Durbin! Senator Dick Durbin was not there. He was in Peoria, and he was telling the VFW in Peoria that he didn't do anything wrong except hurt people's feelings and that his words were misinterpreted and it's really those people's fault. "Lawmakers from both parties agree that still must be done to ensure an adequate legal process is in place to handle detainee cases, but Republican representative Joe Schwartz said, 'I think they're doing the best they can to define due process down there.' Republicans and Democrats alike fear the prison is hurting our image."
This is just getting so frustrating. You know, we talk about Zarqawi. Abu Mussab Zarqawi. Now, theoretically, ladies and gentlemen, Zarqawi is operating in Iraq, right? Zarqawi is running his terrorist insurgents and they're launching suicide bombing missions and so forth, and those attacks are assumed to be taking place in Iraq. But you know where Zarqawi's attacks are really succeeding? Right here in Washington, DC. Every time a member of the US Congress stands up and belittles our effort in Iraq, claims we're losing, claims we're in a quagmire, Zarqawi has hit gold. Zarqawi has his own useful idiots in the United States of America and his attacks in Iraq are doing more damage in the United States than his attacks in Iraq are doing in Iraq, and that's the dirty little secret.
Spot-on. And that is why these guys absolutely cannot be trusted with the keys. Period.
Democrats don't have a death wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994.
The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning.
At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day," Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire."
Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security.
Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years.
In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. [...]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily. [...]
In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. [...] I
n 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats.
Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq. John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure.
Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.
Every two years, the Democrats try to dress themselves in "conservative clothing", pretending to embrace the values they in fact despise. Witness John Kerry promising to "hunt the terrorists down and kill them..." Riiight... Especially if they go into Cambodia, right John?
But in between each election they spend a majority of their time defunding the military, railing against any military interventions, and ignoring global threats in favor of social programs. Lately we've been hearing words like Nazi and quagmire and Gulag from the over-the-top hyperbolic left. If history is any judge, the Dems are once again setting themselves up for a big fall.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh really nailed it today with a comparison regarding the anti-war Democrats:
LIMBAUGH: US lawmakers witnessed interrogations, toured cell blocks, and ate the same lunch given to detainees on the first congressional visit to the prison since criticism of it intensified in the spring." A Senate delegation also was visiting this weekend, but guess who wasn't there? Senator Durbin! Senator Dick Durbin was not there. He was in Peoria, and he was telling the VFW in Peoria that he didn't do anything wrong except hurt people's feelings and that his words were misinterpreted and it's really those people's fault. "Lawmakers from both parties agree that still must be done to ensure an adequate legal process is in place to handle detainee cases, but Republican representative Joe Schwartz said, 'I think they're doing the best they can to define due process down there.' Republicans and Democrats alike fear the prison is hurting our image."
This is just getting so frustrating. You know, we talk about Zarqawi. Abu Mussab Zarqawi. Now, theoretically, ladies and gentlemen, Zarqawi is operating in Iraq, right? Zarqawi is running his terrorist insurgents and they're launching suicide bombing missions and so forth, and those attacks are assumed to be taking place in Iraq. But you know where Zarqawi's attacks are really succeeding? Right here in Washington, DC. Every time a member of the US Congress stands up and belittles our effort in Iraq, claims we're losing, claims we're in a quagmire, Zarqawi has hit gold. Zarqawi has his own useful idiots in the United States of America and his attacks in Iraq are doing more damage in the United States than his attacks in Iraq are doing in Iraq, and that's the dirty little secret.
Spot-on. And that is why these guys absolutely cannot be trusted with the keys. Period.
