From the WSJ Opinion Archives
The
GOP in Demsville?
The Washington Monthly, a liberal magazine, has just published a curious piece
by one of its editors, Benjamin Wallace-Wells. His argument is that today's
Republican Party "is supremely powerful but ideologically incoherent."
As a result, it "is headed for a profound crackup. The only questions are
when, exactly, the decline will start--and how long it will last."
He likens the GOP to the Democratic Party in 1976:
Like any party, the Democrats then were a coalition of factions. New Deal economic constituencies (labor, farmers, industrial and energy interests) coexisted with newer liberal-left, socially-conscious groups (environmentalists, rights-conscious black and Hispanic organizations, feminists, Naderites) that had emerged from the tumult of the 1960s.
These various factions often disagreed vehemently. Environmentalists clashed with autoworkers over fuel-efficiency standards; building trade unions were at war with civil rights groups over affirmative action. Scoop Jackson Democrats wanted Washington to take a tougher line with our Soviet enemies; human rights doves wanted Washington to take a tougher line against our tyrannical allies, such as Ferdinand Marcos.
What all of them could agree on, however, was the vital importance of big government. Each wanted more spending for its programs, more robust regulations, and a stronger hand for Washington in the market to restrain the forces that threatened its own interests. Big government was the glue that held the Democratic coalition together. It was also the moral cause that defined the party, and in 1976, that cause seemed beyond dispute. Even Richard Nixon had created the Environmental Protection Agency and instituted wage and price controls to fight inflation. The argument seemed over. Big government had won.
This analogy is problematic, to say the least. As Wallace-Wells explicates, Republicans today, quite unlike Democrats of 1976, are divided over their fundamental approach to domestic policy, with the ideology of small-government libertarianism competing with that of big-government compassionate conservatism. Congressional Republicans are spending money like crazy, as congressional majorities are wont to do--for political reasons more than ideological ones.
National security is the "glue" that holds the Republican Party together, whereas the Democrats, just as in the 1970s, are divided over whether America should be tougher on its enemies or its friends. That division puts the Dems at a strong disadvantage, at least when it comes to the presidency, for as long as the country is at war.
Here is Wallace-Wells's conclusion:
Political parties don't abandon their most cherished ideas, break with their most powerful interests, or dump their most entrenched leaders for high-minded civic reasons. They do so only when they lose elections again, and again, and again. And if history's any guide, that is going to be the eventual fate of today's Republican Party.
Well, in the long run we're all doomed, and Republicans should indeed be wary of the dangers of becoming "hidebound and out of touch," as Wallace-Wells puts it. Some such criticisms of the GOP certainly ring true; the behavior of the Republican Congress in the years since the 1994 "revolution" has been a disappointment to those of us who incline toward smaller government.
But our sense is that it is the Democrats--having lost elections again, and again, and again--who are headed for a crackup first. Despite their losses, the Dems until 2002 (save for a few months in 2001) had always since 1955 held at least one part of the government: the House until 1995, the presidency in 1995-2001, and the Senate (thanks to Jim Jeffords) in 2001-03. The loss of the party's Senate redoubt in the 2002 election gave strength to the Angry Left, which, at least on the all-important question of national security, is irresponsibly out of touch with normal Americans.
If voters punish the Democrats for their irresponsibility by dealing them a decisive loss in this year's election, that may force upon the party a long-overdue reckoning with reality. Over the long term, nothing would be better for the Democratic Party--or for the health of American democracy.
Bush
Is Crying Wolf. Oh Wait, There Is a Wolf.
Tonight's debate is probably the last chance John Kerry will have to persuade
Americans that he is capable of leading the country during wartime. His supporters
must be hoping against hope that what he says tonight will be more coherent
than what he's been saying since he started campaigning--up to and including
this morning. ABC News reports on part of an interview with Diane Sawyer that
aired today on "Good Morning America":
When asked why polls show Bush gaining support among women voters, Kerry said the president has been scaring America.
"He's talking terror every day and people see terrible images of what's happening in the world, and they're real--people being beheaded, the acts of terror in that school in Russia," Kerry said. "I feel that as any mom in America does or any father. I mean, I'm a parent too."
So Kerry is criticizing Bush for "scaring America," while acknowledging that the things they fear are real? In a way it seems fitting that this debate comes 66 years to the day after then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared "peace for our time." As the BBC reported back then, "many MPs are bound to criticise it as part of the Prime Minister's 'appeasement' of German aggression in Europe." At least they knew where Chamberlain stood.
You
Don't Say
"Bush, Kerry Hope to Win Voters in Debate"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 29
What
Would Everyday People Do Without Pundits?
"Likability Swings Votes of Everyday People, Pundits Say"--headline,
USA Today, Sept. 28
What
Would We Do Without Some?
"Some Say Presidential Debates Won't Change Their Votes"--headline,
Associated Press, Sept. 30
'Debate Response Team'
Now we know how John Kerry plans to "win" tonight's debate. We received
an e-mail this afternoon from Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, on behalf of the DNC's "debate response team." Recipients
are urged to help the campaign spin the debate:
- "National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls
during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online
polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one
of them."
- "Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the
editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and
had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you
feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters,
put it in your letter."
- "Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record."
"Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry win on November 2," the e-mail says. Do these guys really think such cheerleading is what wins presidential elections?
Is
There a Draft in Here?
Columnist Robert Novak reports on one of the Kerry campaign's more underhanded
tactics: trying to scare young voters and parents of teenagers by hinting that
President Bush has a "secret plan" to reinstate the draft:
The Associated Press reported that the candidate at West Palm Beach, Fla., "raised the possibility" of a reinstated draft. That is an old saw on the Internet even though there are no such plans at the Pentagon. The only advocates of renewed conscription are liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who believe it would discourage U.S. military intervention around the world.
What's more, Kerry himself--in a page that has disappeared from his Web site but can still be found at the Internet Archive--called for "a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service."
Handicapping
the Race
"A poll conducted by Harris Interactive this month finds President George
W. Bush with a narrow lead over Sen. John F. Kerry among Americans with disabilities
who are likely to vote in November's election," according to a press release
from the National Organization on Disability:
Among U.S. adults with disabilities who are likely voters, 48 percent said they were either likely to vote for, or leaning toward voting for President Bush, while 46 percent said the same for Sen. Kerry. Three percent favored Ralph Nader.
In a similar poll a month ago, Kerry had a 50% to 40% lead among the disabled.
"The voting survey did not identify the reasons likely voters with disabilities favor Bush," today's press release says. Allow us to suggest one possible factor. In 1971, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, antiwar activist John Kerry described his protest tactics: "I called the media. . . . I said, 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'Oh, yes, we will cover that.' "
Late last month, Kerry did just that, dispatching triple-amputee Max Cleland to attempt to deliver a letter to President Bush demanding that the president silence dissenting Vietnam veterans. Perhaps Americans with disabilities don't take kindly to Kerry's use, throughout his career, of "crippled veterans" as political props.
Patriot
Games
From a New York Times dispatch by R.W. Apple on John Kerry's difficulties in
Missouri:
Social conservatism in rural areas, reinforced by intense patriotism that tends to favor Mr. Bush, plus social and economic conservatism in the outer suburbs of the big cities, could add up to a majority for the president.
"Intense patriotism . . . tends to favor Mr. Bush"? Does this mean people who are more lukewarm in their patriotism, or outright unpatriotic, tend to favor Mr. Kerry? Is Johnny Apple questioning Kerry's patriotism?
And
Tax Cuts Beat Nuance
"Economic Growth Better Than Thought"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 29
American
Windsurfer
John Kerry has been crying foul over the Bush campaign's ad portraying him as
a windsurfer, but it turns out he really is a windsurfer. In fact, a few years
back American Windsurfer magazine ran a cover story on Kerry titled "A
Windsurfer in the White House?" It begins with this anecdote (ellipsis
in original):
Senator John Kerry was being pulverized by 40 knot winds. His windsurfing buddy cringed at the sight of a United States Senator being tossed around like a rag doll and splattered time and time again onto the forgiving waters of his beloved state of Massachusetts. For three hours, Kerry felt the rage of the wind and struggled to leverage his body against the gale force-finding balance briefly, only to lose it in spectacular crashes. Nevin Sayre, the windsurfer whose equipment the Senator was borrowing, was amazed at the warrior's perseverance and was worried about the Senator's safety. He could see the New York Times headline blaming him for the loss of a luminary. For even he, a former professional windsurfer, had difficulties in these overpowering conditions. "Finally," recounts Sayre, the 54-year old Senator dragged himself out of the water and, grinning from ear to ear, proclaimed the experience as . . . "OUTSTANDING!"
Except for that last part, it sounds a lot like the campaign so far.
Bible
Ban?
A kerfuffle has arisen over a GOP campaign mailing in Arkansas and West Virginia,
both socially conservative swing states, whose cover
features the word BANNED superimposed over an image of the Bible. "This
will be Arkansas" (or West Virginia), the flier proclaims, "if you
don't vote."
Democrats are outraged at the implication that they would ban the Bible, but as Eugene Volokh points out, it seems clear that no one would believe an outright ban of the Good Book is in the cards. And Democrats do tend to believe that the Bible and other religious symbols should be banished from government schools and public property.
As Volokh notes, it's common enough for those on the left to use the word ban with similar looseness. Two examples: "(1) the American Library Association's use of 'banned books' to refer to books that were merely excluded from public school curricula, and (2) the references to a 'stem cell research ban' to describe the Bush Administration's decision to substantially limit federal funding for stem cell research."
Nonetheless, an editorial in the Capital Times of Madison, Wis., is utterly hysterical over the mailing:
When political operatives begin to tell people that their holy texts will be banned if they don't vote for a particular candidate or party, they enter into a danger zone. People take their religion seriously; history and contemporary experience tell us that they are willing to kill or be killed in order to defend their faith. One of the most powerful recruiting tools for terrorists is the suggestion that one's religion is threatened.
It seems rather implausible to think that this campaign mailing is going to lead to a rash of Christian suicide bombers. Besides, if Republicans are forced to stop engaging in political hyperbole, surely the terrorists will have won.
What
Would We Do Without TV Pioneers?
"TV Pioneer: 'Terrible Goofs Made' at CBS"--headline, Argus Leader
(Sioux Falls, S.D.), Sept. 29
Fair
Is Fair
"John Walker Lindh asked President Bush on Tuesday to commute his 20-year
prison sentence for aiding the Taliban," the Associated Press reports:
His lawyer, James Brosnahan, said that Lindh was fighting alongside the Taliban in a civil war against the Northern Alliance, that he is not a terrorist and that he never fought against U.S. troops.
Brosnahan said the sentence should be reduced because Yaser Esam Hamdi, another American citizen captured in Afghanistan on suspicion of aiding the Taliban, is being released after being held for three years as an enemy combatant. . . .
"Comparable conduct should be treated in comparable ways in terms of sentencing," Brosnahan said at a news conference.
By that logic, Susan Smith should not only be sprung from prison but given a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts.
Muqtada's
Massacre
Tim Chavez, a columnist for the (Nashville) Tennessean, offers this horrifying
quote from Lt. Col. Jim Rose, a Tennessee Marine fighting in Iraq:
''The Najaf shrine--HUNDREDS of dead women and children were brought out after [Muqtada al] Sadr left,'' Rose wrote. ''They (Sadr's supporters) rounded them up during the battle and brought them in to be executed. Why? Because they anticipated the Americans would eventually enter the shrine and walk into a media ambush. We never went in. The people of Najaf love us right now because of that. They hate Sadr and want him dead.
''Have you heard that one yet (in the media)?''
In the New York Post, Amir Taheri recounts this "recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin":
The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
This is one of the "allies" John Kerry thinks he would be able to win over to our side.
Zero-Tolerance
Watch
The East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz., reports that "taking a puff off
a helium-filled balloon while decorating for the Friday night junior high school
dance was enough to get Hayley Hoffman, 13, suspended for five days under Gilbert
Unified School District's zero tolerance policy on inhalants." Officials
at Greenfield
Junior High later reduced the suspension to one day:
District spokeswoman Dianne Bowers admitted that at first glance, "this seems a bit silly."
She was quick to point out, however, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before jumping to conclusions.
Such as: Was she sucking the helium from a tank or from a balloon, or did someone become ill? "It is my understanding helium replaces oxygen in the lungs and in very severe cases can cause great harm," Bowers said.
As Tony Pizon, a toxicologist with Maricopa County Poison Control, notes, "You don't get high from helium and it doesn't cause any damage. Worst case, you could pass out, but you would instantly regain consciousness."
He
Should've Stuck to Jack Daniels
"Delta Pilot Injured From Beam in Cockpit"--headline, WSB-TV Web site
(Atlanta), Sept. 30
What
Would Pregnant: Expecting Moms Do Without Experts?
"Pregnant: Expecting Moms Should Eat Right, Experts Say"--headline,
Idaho State Journal (Pocatello), Sept. 29
What
Would Asthmatic Kids Playing Sports Do Without Experts?
"Experts Recommend Precautions for Asthmatic Kids Playing Sports"--headline,
Detroit News, Sept. 29
It's
the Eponymy, Stupid
"Skunks have invaded a downtown neighborhood, and the city has agreed to
spend $2,500 to get rid of them," the Associated Press reports from Traverse
City, Mich.:
"It sounds humorous, but it really isn't," Bob Sniff, whose dog has been sprayed three times, told the Traverse City Record-Eagle for a story Tuesday. "It's been pretty unbearable."
True, it isn't humorous. But Bob Sniff's name is.
Name
That Team
For the first time since Richard Nixon was in the White House, Washington will
have a major-league baseball team. "Baseball will return with the cherry
blossoms to the nation's capital next spring when the Montreal Expos become
Washington's fourth major league franchise and its first since the Washington
Senators packed up and moved to Texas in 1971," the Washington Post reports.
WTOP radio is inviting listeners to suggest a new name for the Washington team. Among the "most popular" suggestions are Senators, Nationals and Monuments; the "most interesting" include Gridlocks, Filibusters and Ex-Expos.
We got to thinking: There's been a trend recently toward the use of abstract singular nouns as team names: Utah Jazz, Orlando Magic, Colorado Avalanche. This has mostly been a basketball and hockey phenomenon, though baseball does have the Tampa Bay Devilry. Why not click through to this link and cast your vote for calling the team the Washington Kerfuffle?
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Dan Calabrese, Bill Vis, Gary Petersen, Andrew Robinson, Doug Levene, Clark Bennett, Samuel Walker, Skip King, Aaron Dickey, Lionel Burnette, Joe Seely, Barak Moore, Jim Orheim, Vito Maria, Tom Linehan, Christine Alfieri, Alex Wong, Mark Van Der Molen, Michael Segal, William Beutler, Robert Shull, Ethel Fenig, John Williamson, John Sanders, Richard Miniter, Brian Blum, Joseph Hepworth, Pete Drum, C.E. Dobkin, James Gallagher, Brent Silver and Craig Taylor. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Debate tips for John Kerry
- Pete du Pont: Bush the great? Maybe, if he continues with pre-emption and reforms Social Security.
- Michael Wolf: What are Leno, Letterman and O'Brien saying that the network news anchors can't?
