The Democrats patriotism problem
Democrats seem to think that questioning their bad ideas on national security is a challenge to their patriotism.
From The Best of the Web Today:
"...Hmm, public service, public good, liberty, free expression: The elements of Clark's 'new kind of patriotism' seem indistinguishable from the old kind. So what is Clark getting at? The New Republic's Peter Beinart argues that it's all an effort to obscure differences over policy:
'Much of the Democratic base still doesn't take national security seriously. Sure, Democrats know that most Americans don't trust the party to keep them safe. But they deny that this distrust has anything to do with prevailing Democratic ideology. The party, they reassure themselves, merely needs a tougher image.
'And so Democrats keep trying to find new, ever more Rambo-like personas to proclaim essentially the same message. First, there was John Kerry, whose Vietnam heroism supposedly inoculated him against GOP attacks, his incoherent Iraq position notwithstanding. Now, there is General Clark. Maybe Clark does indeed have a proactive, coherent national security message. But, with his Kerry-esque, have-it-both-ways position on Iraq, he certainly hasn't articulated that message on the stump. And many of the Democrats who cheered Clark's entrance into the race don't particularly care; for them, Clark's résumé is the message. Once again, the Democrats are trying to solve an ideological problem with a biographical solution. It didn't work for decorated World War II flying ace George McGovern; it didn't work for Vietnam triple-amputee Max Cleland. And it won't work next fall. The voters--shocking as it may seem--actually care what the parties believe.'
"And what do the Democrats believe? Well, last night Dean responded to a criticism from Dick Gephardt on Medicare by saying: 'We need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other.' Great patriot though Howard Dean may be, it strikes us as misguided for him to begin his 'enemies list' not with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein but with the president of the United States."
Read Beinart's whole piece here. It is about time someone in the Democratic party noticed. It is also time for the party to quit trying to spin criticism of their bad ideas on national security into an attack on their patriotism. How about an argument on the merit of your ideas?
Democrats seem to think that questioning their bad ideas on national security is a challenge to their patriotism.
From The Best of the Web Today:
"...Hmm, public service, public good, liberty, free expression: The elements of Clark's 'new kind of patriotism' seem indistinguishable from the old kind. So what is Clark getting at? The New Republic's Peter Beinart argues that it's all an effort to obscure differences over policy:
'Much of the Democratic base still doesn't take national security seriously. Sure, Democrats know that most Americans don't trust the party to keep them safe. But they deny that this distrust has anything to do with prevailing Democratic ideology. The party, they reassure themselves, merely needs a tougher image.
'And so Democrats keep trying to find new, ever more Rambo-like personas to proclaim essentially the same message. First, there was John Kerry, whose Vietnam heroism supposedly inoculated him against GOP attacks, his incoherent Iraq position notwithstanding. Now, there is General Clark. Maybe Clark does indeed have a proactive, coherent national security message. But, with his Kerry-esque, have-it-both-ways position on Iraq, he certainly hasn't articulated that message on the stump. And many of the Democrats who cheered Clark's entrance into the race don't particularly care; for them, Clark's résumé is the message. Once again, the Democrats are trying to solve an ideological problem with a biographical solution. It didn't work for decorated World War II flying ace George McGovern; it didn't work for Vietnam triple-amputee Max Cleland. And it won't work next fall. The voters--shocking as it may seem--actually care what the parties believe.'
"And what do the Democrats believe? Well, last night Dean responded to a criticism from Dick Gephardt on Medicare by saying: 'We need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other.' Great patriot though Howard Dean may be, it strikes us as misguided for him to begin his 'enemies list' not with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein but with the president of the United States."
Read Beinart's whole piece here. It is about time someone in the Democratic party noticed. It is also time for the party to quit trying to spin criticism of their bad ideas on national security into an attack on their patriotism. How about an argument on the merit of your ideas?
Comments
Post a Comment