Saturday, February 12, 2005
Dem Dems do Dean
I used to be a Democrat. I know. I know. A stultifying revelation. Most people think I emerged from the cocoon as a natural born crazoid from the right.
But I was raised in a typical New England home that was very naturally pro-Democrat. My father was the son of an immigrant, went to work before finishing high school surrounded by people who benefitted marginally by the presidency of FDR.
My Democratic roots are something I have in common, I'm proud to say, with my most favorite modern day president, Ronald Reagan. It was in the early 1970's that I found myself driven to admit something similar to what Reagan had announced after a time, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
It was a gradual devolution. And one would think that, after many a pitfall, apart from the hiatus of the Clinton years - an anamoly of sorts - that the Democratic Party would make an adjustment toward the center?
No way. Instead they are careening ever so directly leftward off a cliff from which they may never recover by having now annointed Howard Dean as chairman. It seems, now, the Democrats have their foot to the pedal, eschewing regular folk all the more, and leaning ever so obviously in favor of the elitist. Why no one opposed Dean is beyond me. So which is it? Dean Democratism or what?
From Ross Terrill in today's Boston Globe (HT: Instapundit):
They have done themselves a great disservice. Apart from the very few in the middle, the left most vocal chords will be speaking for the party for the time being, and that will cold work the temperament of the average citizen while while it secures many years of a Republican majority across this country's statehouses, legislatures, and of course, in Washington DC.
But I was raised in a typical New England home that was very naturally pro-Democrat. My father was the son of an immigrant, went to work before finishing high school surrounded by people who benefitted marginally by the presidency of FDR.
My Democratic roots are something I have in common, I'm proud to say, with my most favorite modern day president, Ronald Reagan. It was in the early 1970's that I found myself driven to admit something similar to what Reagan had announced after a time, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
It was a gradual devolution. And one would think that, after many a pitfall, apart from the hiatus of the Clinton years - an anamoly of sorts - that the Democratic Party would make an adjustment toward the center?
No way. Instead they are careening ever so directly leftward off a cliff from which they may never recover by having now annointed Howard Dean as chairman. It seems, now, the Democrats have their foot to the pedal, eschewing regular folk all the more, and leaning ever so obviously in favor of the elitist. Why no one opposed Dean is beyond me. So which is it? Dean Democratism or what?
From Ross Terrill in today's Boston Globe (HT: Instapundit):
DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty....And so the forecast from our friends in the Democrat party is gloom with a greater chance of dark.
...Not least, the left cultural gate-keepers of our time in the media and academia have come to picture themselves as rivals of democracy. Telling us how we are going to vote (polls) and then why we voted (more polls) is a usurpation of democracy. Consider the arrogance of the exit poll; CNN announces the result before the result exists! For voters, the system is not theirs to infuse from below; it is the to reengineer from above.
What a strange moment for the left to lose faith in democracy. The Soviet Union and other Leninist dictatorships are gone in a puff of smoke. Democracy is taking root in Latin America. South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Thailand are all newly democratic. Throughout the 20th century, war and authoritarianism were inseparable. For 30 years, democracy and free markets have surged and no war has occurred anywhere on the scale ofKorea and Vietnam, let alone World War I and World War II.
Seymour Hersh recently told "Democracy Now!" radio that America was in a bad way because "eight or nine neoconservatives" have "grabbed the government." Not mentioning that Bush was elected by 51 percent of the voters, Hersh did detect a ray of hope. One "salvation may be the economy," Hersh said regrettably, "It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick."
A left that sees a lousy economy as political salvation and frets about stocks and a villa in Italy is not the idealistic, worker-respecting left anymore. Certainly it is not a believer in democracy.
They have done themselves a great disservice. Apart from the very few in the middle, the left most vocal chords will be speaking for the party for the time being, and that will cold work the temperament of the average citizen while while it secures many years of a Republican majority across this country's statehouses, legislatures, and of course, in Washington DC.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]