Dionne Misses The Mark
Since Wednesday morning, various members of the liberal elite and intelligensia have been weighing in with their often frantic, outrageous, and vitriolic views regarding America and the way in which George W. Bush won the election.
E.J. Dionne Jr. weighed in today. He started with,
Virtually all Presidential campaigns surely use tactics that, at times, are over the top. However, to pretend, as Dionne does, that John Kerry ran a high minded cordial campaign - and would have been victorious if not for Karl Rove's mean tactics - is disingenuous at best.
Not only did Senator Kerry accuse the President of "misleading" the country (his code word for "lying") on a daily basis, but his surrogates used even stronger language. Did Senator Kerry denounce Al Gore for saying that President Bush "betrayed" his country? Did Senator Kerry demand that the ACT flier, intended to inflame racial passions with its depictions of the 1960s civil rights movement (and its implied comparison to the Republican Party of today) , be removed? Did Senator Kerry denounce the tidal wave of negative television advertisements funded by Democratic 527 groups?
Of course not. To the contrary, the leader of ACT's efforts - Harold Ickes - has been mentioned by pundits as a possible successor to Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee. To be fair, these 527 groups were not associated directly with the Kerry campaign, but the Senator was clearly aware of their efforts and took no steps to stop them.
Unwittingly, in dicussing the Republican's "vicious" attacks, Dionne himself continues to lob bombs of his own, mentioning the "untruths" of the war in Iraq, and wondering how voters would allow President Bush to "[heap] a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich." Could it be that perhaps voters agreed with the President that all people deserve to have a tax cut? Of course not! Doesn't everyone know the Republicans are only interested in helping the rich? It is this mentality that prevents leaders of the Democratic Party from seeing the true reasons why they lost on Tuesday. If Democrats and liberals hope to gain an understanding of what really happened on November 2, they need to understand that it was not partisan tricks and hackery that were responsible for Bush's 3.5 million vote margin. In accusing the President of "exploitation of strong religious feelings," Dionne seemingly alludes to the passage of several anti-gay marriage referenda. The implication is that Bush's constituency was motivated by raw irrational emotion, rather than a logical understanding of the issues. After all, the liberal intelligensia cannot comprehend why any intelligent person could possibly vote against gay marriage.
In actuality, during the campaign President Bush focused most of his time on foreign affairs, rather than on the more controversial issues like abortion and gay rights. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court bear the greatest responsibility for the saliency of the gay marriage issue in this election year. It was their efforts to impose new gay marriage policies without using the democratic process that inspired voters to reject such unilateral action. The referenda against gay marriage were not confined to the "red states" - measures in Oregon and Michigan were adopted by wide margins.
Before the President's victory, the election was seen as a referundum on his role as Commander-In-Chief. Exit poll data indicates that these issues most closely divided the nation. While the President clearly benefitted from the support of many religious voters concerned with moral values, exit polls indicate it was foreign affairs that split the electorate most evenly.
[Disclaimer: Given the inaccuracy of the exit polls in general, the exact exit poll numbers in any context must be taken with a grain of salt, but they can be used to gain insight into the voters that were polled. If anything, the exit polls would likely be skewed in Senator Kerry's favor, given that they forecast a Kerry victory].
Tuesday's exit polls indicate that more than half of the voters on Tuesday rejected Senator Kerry's major premise that Iraq was the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." When asked whether they approved of President Bush's original decision to go to war in Iraq, 51% approved (the same percentage by which the President won the popular vote), compared with 46% who disapproved. 55% of voters said they felt safer than they were four years ago, compared with only 41% who said they felt less safe. 52% of voters also said that the war in Iraq was going "badly" while 44% said that it was going well.
At first glance, these results may seem paradoxical, but the differences are not irreconcilable. Despite the incessant anti-war attacks by Michael Moore and Senator Kerry, the average American knew as well as anybody that before America invaded Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was viewed as a threat. The same voters who approved of the President's initial decision likely wanted the President to see the war through to victory. It is not in the American spirt to cut and run. Americans want to see their leaders pursue and achieve victory to its end. Even if a majority of Americans believed that the Iraq war was going badly, it was unwise for the Democrats to assume that voters would turn out in mass to reject the President's leadership.
Admittedly, only a few days past Election Day, it is difficult to gain full perspective on what has transpired. However, the Democrat Party faces some tough questions. Does it continue on its present course, pursuing policies soundly rebuked not only at the Presidential level, but also the Congressional level? Or does the party attempt to right itself, and pursue a path more in line with the beliefs and ideals of the average American?
E.J. Dionne Jr. weighed in today. He started with,
While Dionne's call to the Democratic faithful is not surprising, it illustrates the problem belying the election analysis of many liberal commentators. Rather than discussing the possibility that Senator John Kerry's ideology and beliefs were responsible for his defeat, Dionne blames "vicious personal attacks" and "exploitation of strong religious feelings."
Don't mourn. Organize.
Okay, we can mourn a little first. The punch in the stomach that really got blue Americans singing the blues was George W. Bush's popular vote lead of more than 3.5 million.
Let's be honest: We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks, the exploitation of strong religious feelings and an effort to create the appearance of strong leadership that would do Hollywood proud. We are alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable for utter incompetence in Iraq and for untruths spoken in defense of the war. We are amazed that a majority was not concerned about heaping a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich.
Virtually all Presidential campaigns surely use tactics that, at times, are over the top. However, to pretend, as Dionne does, that John Kerry ran a high minded cordial campaign - and would have been victorious if not for Karl Rove's mean tactics - is disingenuous at best.
Not only did Senator Kerry accuse the President of "misleading" the country (his code word for "lying") on a daily basis, but his surrogates used even stronger language. Did Senator Kerry denounce Al Gore for saying that President Bush "betrayed" his country? Did Senator Kerry demand that the ACT flier, intended to inflame racial passions with its depictions of the 1960s civil rights movement (and its implied comparison to the Republican Party of today) , be removed? Did Senator Kerry denounce the tidal wave of negative television advertisements funded by Democratic 527 groups?
Of course not. To the contrary, the leader of ACT's efforts - Harold Ickes - has been mentioned by pundits as a possible successor to Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee. To be fair, these 527 groups were not associated directly with the Kerry campaign, but the Senator was clearly aware of their efforts and took no steps to stop them.
Unwittingly, in dicussing the Republican's "vicious" attacks, Dionne himself continues to lob bombs of his own, mentioning the "untruths" of the war in Iraq, and wondering how voters would allow President Bush to "[heap] a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich." Could it be that perhaps voters agreed with the President that all people deserve to have a tax cut? Of course not! Doesn't everyone know the Republicans are only interested in helping the rich? It is this mentality that prevents leaders of the Democratic Party from seeing the true reasons why they lost on Tuesday. If Democrats and liberals hope to gain an understanding of what really happened on November 2, they need to understand that it was not partisan tricks and hackery that were responsible for Bush's 3.5 million vote margin. In accusing the President of "exploitation of strong religious feelings," Dionne seemingly alludes to the passage of several anti-gay marriage referenda. The implication is that Bush's constituency was motivated by raw irrational emotion, rather than a logical understanding of the issues. After all, the liberal intelligensia cannot comprehend why any intelligent person could possibly vote against gay marriage.
In actuality, during the campaign President Bush focused most of his time on foreign affairs, rather than on the more controversial issues like abortion and gay rights. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court bear the greatest responsibility for the saliency of the gay marriage issue in this election year. It was their efforts to impose new gay marriage policies without using the democratic process that inspired voters to reject such unilateral action. The referenda against gay marriage were not confined to the "red states" - measures in Oregon and Michigan were adopted by wide margins.
Before the President's victory, the election was seen as a referundum on his role as Commander-In-Chief. Exit poll data indicates that these issues most closely divided the nation. While the President clearly benefitted from the support of many religious voters concerned with moral values, exit polls indicate it was foreign affairs that split the electorate most evenly.
[Disclaimer: Given the inaccuracy of the exit polls in general, the exact exit poll numbers in any context must be taken with a grain of salt, but they can be used to gain insight into the voters that were polled. If anything, the exit polls would likely be skewed in Senator Kerry's favor, given that they forecast a Kerry victory].
Tuesday's exit polls indicate that more than half of the voters on Tuesday rejected Senator Kerry's major premise that Iraq was the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." When asked whether they approved of President Bush's original decision to go to war in Iraq, 51% approved (the same percentage by which the President won the popular vote), compared with 46% who disapproved. 55% of voters said they felt safer than they were four years ago, compared with only 41% who said they felt less safe. 52% of voters also said that the war in Iraq was going "badly" while 44% said that it was going well.
At first glance, these results may seem paradoxical, but the differences are not irreconcilable. Despite the incessant anti-war attacks by Michael Moore and Senator Kerry, the average American knew as well as anybody that before America invaded Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was viewed as a threat. The same voters who approved of the President's initial decision likely wanted the President to see the war through to victory. It is not in the American spirt to cut and run. Americans want to see their leaders pursue and achieve victory to its end. Even if a majority of Americans believed that the Iraq war was going badly, it was unwise for the Democrats to assume that voters would turn out in mass to reject the President's leadership.
Admittedly, only a few days past Election Day, it is difficult to gain full perspective on what has transpired. However, the Democrat Party faces some tough questions. Does it continue on its present course, pursuing policies soundly rebuked not only at the Presidential level, but also the Congressional level? Or does the party attempt to right itself, and pursue a path more in line with the beliefs and ideals of the average American?
posted by JD at 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home