The irrelevance of the loyal opposition
A Deborah Orin column in today's New York Post argues that the Democrats are becoming increasingly irrelevant to political discourse in the United States. I would tend to agree, but do not believe the situation to be terminal.
That said, I feel that it's pretty easy to lapse into irrelevancy when you don't know what your core beliefs are, or what you even stand for, other than being "against".
The party that had no problem meddling in the affairs of any number of countries during 1993-2000 (Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan - most of them half-assed bomb-hurling exercises) suddenly returns to their Vietnam-induced pacifist fever-swamps post-9/11 because a cowboy who doesn't take kindly to terrorism decides to get all ninth-century on Jihadistan.
So, which are they? Are they the interventionist, "democracy"-spreaders of the previous decade, or the "peace"-at-all-costs, pacifist, isolationists of today?
Merely 8-years ago, Social Security was a "crisis" that needed to be "fixed" (I can still hear the chants of "SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST!!!!" ringing in my ears). Today, everything is swell, and no changes whatever are required to this Depression-era behemoth. Again, which is it?
Zell Miller's quirky personality aside, his point that the Democrat Party is no-longer a national party is spot-on. The modern Democrat Party is little more than a cotillion of competing interest groups (radical feminists, homosexuals, ethnic pressure groups, urban liberals, academics, career unionists, dirt-poor recent - or illegal - immigrants), with very little in common with each other aside from their common distrust (hatred, loathing of) Republicans in general and Dubya in particular.
Now they have the personification of that hatred, Dr. Howard "I-hate-Republicans-and-everything-they-stand-for" Dean as their lead-spokesman for the next four years. YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHH!!!!!
I suppose we'll see how successful being the anti-party is for them over the next few years. It's been going swimmingly to date - for our side, that is.
That said, I feel that it's pretty easy to lapse into irrelevancy when you don't know what your core beliefs are, or what you even stand for, other than being "against".
The party that had no problem meddling in the affairs of any number of countries during 1993-2000 (Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan - most of them half-assed bomb-hurling exercises) suddenly returns to their Vietnam-induced pacifist fever-swamps post-9/11 because a cowboy who doesn't take kindly to terrorism decides to get all ninth-century on Jihadistan.
So, which are they? Are they the interventionist, "democracy"-spreaders of the previous decade, or the "peace"-at-all-costs, pacifist, isolationists of today?
Merely 8-years ago, Social Security was a "crisis" that needed to be "fixed" (I can still hear the chants of "SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST!!!!" ringing in my ears). Today, everything is swell, and no changes whatever are required to this Depression-era behemoth. Again, which is it?
Zell Miller's quirky personality aside, his point that the Democrat Party is no-longer a national party is spot-on. The modern Democrat Party is little more than a cotillion of competing interest groups (radical feminists, homosexuals, ethnic pressure groups, urban liberals, academics, career unionists, dirt-poor recent - or illegal - immigrants), with very little in common with each other aside from their common distrust (hatred, loathing of) Republicans in general and Dubya in particular.
Now they have the personification of that hatred, Dr. Howard "I-hate-Republicans-and-everything-they-stand-for" Dean as their lead-spokesman for the next four years. YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHH!!!!!
I suppose we'll see how successful being the anti-party is for them over the next few years. It's been going swimmingly to date - for our side, that is.
posted by Doc J | 3:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home