Politics As Usual

How depressing

by Patrick J. Shanahan
08/01/03

There are a certain number of people on the hard-bitten fringes of the political left who have a seething, spittle-dripping contempt for President Bush that is simply astounding to watch. As a charter member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and a self-described “Clinton Hater,” even I am astonished at the passionate vitriol pouring forth on a daily basis from self-proclaimed avatars of compassion and sensitivity. These same folks have been festering in a fetid brew of contempt, sarcasm and ridicule of W since the 2000 election, but since the successful execution of the War on Terror began their anger has become deafening. And the more successful he is, the more enduring his popularity remains, the crazier they get.

The bizarre fixation on the whole “yellow cake” affair is emblematic of the craziness. Those who have hopped on this bandwagon have not done so out of concern for the reliability of our intelligence services, or fear that we made bad national security decisions, but for the sole purpose of tearing down the President. What is most astounding is the transparency of the thing. They seem to believe that if they just shout “Liar!” loudly enough and often enough it will catch on.

Coming from folks who routinely describe their political and philosophical opponents as greedy and uncaring fascists, nazis, racists, and homophobes this ought not to surprise. But what does surprise is that these themes and attitudes seem to be getting adopted as core strategy by the “mainstream” Democratic Party.

Much has been made of Howard Dean’s rise to the top of the Presidential aspirant heap by echoing the hard left’s anger and contempt. The theory is that the other more “moderate” candidates have been forced left in order to compete. This dynamic is undoubtedly true on its own terms, but does not begin to explain the nationwide adoption of gutter politics and truly nasty vituperation. Every word coming out of every mouth is motivated by one and only one thing: winning back the Presidency in 2004. The Democratic Party is not engaged in principled disagreement in the role of Loyal Opposition. It is engaged in a calculated and deliberate character assassination in order to destroy an administration and win back power. The faces on TV pound the President, while the folks in the Senate and House stall and obfuscate and filibuster to keep anything substantive from actually getting done.

This is dismissed by many as “politics as usual.” I don’t think it’s usual. I think it is very unusual. And very depressing.

“Ha!” shouts the liberal. “Now you now what it feels like!” Well, not really. I am sure that a certain portion of the left sees this as payback for the Clinton Years. But there are some critical differences. First, Bill Clinton was a profoundly corrupt individual on many levels, as was/is Hillary. Despite the left’s wishes, this simply is not true of Bush. The magic of Bill Clinton was that he “beat the rap” despite a long list of objective problems: the conviction, imprisonment and suicide of friends and associates related to shady real estate dealings with which he was intimately involved; suspension of his law license for permitting false statements to be made on his behalf in court; making bald-faced lies directly to the entire nation, molesting an intern in the Oval Office. No matter how you try to spin it, W isn’t even in the same area code as Clinton when it comes to corruption, which is validated by the fact that the best the left can come up with is a perhaps too-vague sentence in the State of the Union Address.

But more importantly, most conservative opposition to Clinton was solidly grounded in ideology and policy. When it came to impeachment, most of us “Clinton Haters” saw it as a sad necessity, a requirement in order to maintain respect for the rule of law. Newt Gingrich was capable of being a rhetorical bomb thrower, but the core of his 1994 “conservative revolution” was the Contract With America - as solid a piece of policy framework as you will ever see. He laid out alternatives to the statist impulses of the Clinton gang, and the American people ate it up. In 1996 Bob Dole downplayed sharp differences in policy and got soundly thumped.

So what is the liberal policy alternative to Bush? What do any of the Democrats have to offer? Apparently nothing at all. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nothing but the negative. The left is utterly hollow. They have used up all their ideological gas, and having nothing remaining but a slow descent into reactionary cartoon socialism and politically correct fascism. What’s left when you have no substance? Well, you have to tear down to your level the man you would replace.

And that is why tearing down Republicans has become a Democratic strategy. There are few alternatives, and the ones that exist are not popular with the American people.

Here in Minnesota the strategy is evidenced by a completely fabricated hoopla about Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty is a fairly conservative, fairly popular and quite effective Governor. In order to bring him down a notch, Mr. Pawlenty’s enemies - apparently including the most abhorrent human being in politics today, Attorney General Mike Hatch - in concert with the St. Paul Pioneer Press has manufactured a “scandal” in which it is deemed to be horrible that Governor Pawlenty sat on the board of a company that had a subsidiary company which outsourced some work to a telemarketing firm and got dinged for a couple of sales violations by the Feds. Oh, and he also did some legal work for a friend (before he was Governor). That’s it. That is the sum total of the “scandal,” and yet it has inspired an absolute feeding frenzy among democrats and progressives all over the state. “We need hearings! We need to get down to the bottom of this!”

One of the least talked about aspects of progressivism and its variants is that it is a horribly destructive ideology. It seeks to level through destruction, not through creation. When it runs out of ideas for destruction through policy, it turns to destruction of individuals.

And that we are supposed to accept as “Politics as Usual.”