| « | He's Hit The Ground Running |
»
|
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Emotional Implications Of Recent Democratic SpokesGarbage
Before we proceed, regard well the words of Gerard Van Der Leun, one of the Blogosphere's most thoughtful and penetrating analysts:
The Durbin statement ["If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."] really does reflect, honestly and accurately, the level of esteem that American troops hold within the current Democratic Party -- little to none. Durbin, as minority whip of the Senate, knows this. Howard Dean, leader of the Democratic Party, knows this. Every single Democrat in Congress knows this. And, knowing it, they seek to parrot the sentiment of the Democratic Party in ways great and small in order to assure themselves that, no matter how small the Democratic Party becomes in the coming years, it will still have room for them.Ever since the election of 2000, the previously controllable dementia of the Democratic Party has metastasized. That loss, coupled with the subsequent Republican victories in local, state, and now national elections in 2004, has driven the Democratic Party not so much as towards its left as towards its loonies.
The Democratic Party today is nothing so much as a living demonstration of a kind of Gresham's Law of Politics: "Bad ideology drives good ideology out of politics." The more hate drives any party, the less appealing that party is to decent people and the more appealing it becomes to people who hold degenerate political and social ideas. As those party members increase, the more moderate and moral members either shift parties or take themselves to the sidelines. This increases the power of the decadent Democrats which drives out more of the decent ones. And so it goes.
This death spiral is seldom to be halted by any conscious effort of the better-inclined. We may take it as near to certain -- as close to a bet-the-rent-money proposition as one can come in political prognostication -- that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is headed for political impotence, possibly sooner than anyone might expect.
But why is it happening at all?
One must think long and hard about the emotional dynamics of political involvement to get any feel for the thing. To the initiate, politics usually starts out being about "the good we could do." Shortly thereafter, the good achievable by political means being in reality rather small, it becomes more about winning and losing. But there are branches from there.
As Thomas Sowell has noted, the iconic mindset of the modern American Left, and the Democratic Party that champions its approaches, is an assumption of moral and intellectual superiority. Leftist leaders openly promote that assumption among their followers. It's a seductive thing, and few persons of liberal views are capable of resisting it.
But that assumption has implications for how one will react to rejection. He who prides himself on his intellect, when rejected, will grouse about the public's "inability to understand." He who prides himself on his morals will shriek about the public's embrace of evil.
In a republic that chooses its officials by democratic processes, political stability requires the maintenance of good will among all participants, through both victories and defeats. Political contests are arguments, not combats. To wit:
"The purpose of argument is to test something: either an idea, or your rhetorical skills. The techniques of argument are logic, evidence, analogy, examples and counterexamples, all of which require mutual respect. The ethics of argument require that truth be only the deciding criterion -- and that disagreement be respected wherever uncertainty leaves room for more than one opinion."The purpose of combat is to neutralize the enemy, because his desires and your desires are totally incompatible. The techniques of combat allow for the possibility of eliminating the enemy, if that's the only way he can be neutralized. The ethics of combat are simple: It's him or you."
Svenson glowered. "So I was trying to eliminate Artie instead of arguing with him?"
Carlucci nodded, face perfectly straight. "What else does a charge of 'moral absolutism' mean? It means 'this room ain't big enough for both our moral positions.' And suppose that's true? What's left then, but to fight to the death with sabers?" [from "The Hawk"]
For combat to displace argument implies that the nation has gone from ordinary domestic peace to a state of civil war.
America isn't at that point yet. However, the mindset of the Democrats' anointed leaders -- self-anointed in some cases, but not yet repudiated by any great number of followers -- has steadily dragged the attitudes of the greater population of activists and allegiants toward the hate-the-opposition pole. In effect, the mindset is filtering the Democrats: gradually eliminating those whose fervor of hatred toward conservatives, libertarians, and the Republican opposition is "insufficient."
This does not bode well for the future. Hatred, when concentrated, seeks expression in action. The 2004 elections illustrated the sort of petty vandalism that issues from those who hate "casually," or in dilute fashion. What will come when Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, and their kindred really speak the minds of the preponderance of Democratic partisans is not pleasant to ponder.
Comments
I have to think that in fact the Democrats will not go quite that far. Certainly, all of the evidence is pointing that way at present, but a political party exists to gain and preserve power, and it would take a lot to push the Democrats totally off the edge.
I suspect instead that what we will see will be a continued spiral into the 2006 elections, which the Democrats will lose quite badly. (They’ve certainly given the Republicans all the ammunition that the Republicans need, and it’s likely that the situation in Iraq will have improved markedly over the next year, obviating the Democrats’ most substantive issue.) At this point, Hillary will step in, forcing a purge of the senior leadership and replacing them with her people. After this, she’ll “reluctantly” allow herself to be “compelled” into taking the Democrat nomination for 2008, with her Party solidly united behind her and the worst extremists discredited and marginalized.
Then again, I happen to think that the Clinton’s are the most competent Machiavellian politicians the US has seen since LBJ.
Posted by Jeff Medcalf on 06/21/2005 at 01:41 PMMy bet is that, although civility in politics may be dead forever, we’re not going to have any kind of actual civil war over this. It’s easy to (as some did last October) comment that it’s because “we’re the only ones with guns” (I do know some Democrats who own firearms...but they’ll doubtless be purged from the ranks long before there could be any thought of a shooting war).
But such flip statements are symbolic of the larger picture. There are certainly exceptions, but I doubt there are any significant number of committed Democrats left who actually believe _anything_ strongly enough to fight for it with more than uncivil words.
Let’s face it...if they won’t even file for immigration to Canada in protest of Chimpy McBusHitler winning again, I really don’t think we’re going to be facing anything like serious violent conflict on the homefront.
Posted by Matt on 06/22/2005 at 01:48 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
