For the past couple of years, I’ve been staying away from long commentary here on daddyo. I have done that partly out of laziness, but more because I have not taken the time to collect or cogently express my thoughts on weighty issues. Now that I’m back in school and find writing essays to be part of my weekly routine, I’ve decided to post some of my recent thoughts. The following is an essay I recently submitted to my composition class. Let me know what you think.
It Was a Republican Loss, Not a Democratic Win
With their win in last November’s mid-term election, the Democratic Party has finally regained momentum after 12 years of Republican Congressional domination. With the G.O.P currently in disarray and Bush approval ratings at an all-time low, it would appear that the Democrats are poised to retake the White House in next year’s Presidential election. For many, 2008 is the Democrat’s’ election to lose, and while that may be the case, the Democratic win in 2006 was not truly a victory at all, but rather, a loss for the Republicans. Given this, it’s my belief that the Democratic Party does not deserve to win, if for no other reason than because they lack moral leadership.
Although the G.O.P has not always controlled the White House and Congress during the past quarter century, the reality is that Republicans have been setting the agenda for the nation since the dawn of the Reagan era in 1980. Not only have the Republicans set the agenda for the nation as a whole, remarkably they have set the agenda for the Democratic Party as well.
The Republican domination of the Democrats has been so total during the past 25 years that the G.O.P. has even controlled the language by which Democrats described themselves. The Republicans, the party that gave us the term “peace keeper” to describe a nuclear warhead, has taken the once proud word liberal and defined it as weak, extreme, waffling and out of touch. Liberal, a word that many Democrats wore proudly little more than a generation ago has been so defined by the right that you will barely ever hear a Democrat utter the word when describing themselves.
And just what has been the Republican’s secret weapon during the past 25 years? Has it been patriotism? Tax reform? Their embrace of the church? No, it has been something much simpler; the Republicans and the American Right have dominated the political scene because of their belief in themselves. The complete and utter strength of conviction that they are doing what is moral and just has been the tool with which the Republicans have led. At the same time, the Democrats have stood small while they have sort of opposed the war, kind of supported the gays and would like to make health care available to all Americans. When it has come to defining themselves, the best the Democrats have been able to do is to say they are not liberals and that they are merely the “other party” in a two party system.
Kerry as Coward Waffleman
A great example of the Republican control of the American debate can be seen in the Iraqi war referendum that was the 2004 Presidential election. With his presidential ratings falling along with American support for the war, President Bush was clearly vulnerable in his quest for a second term. The key to his campaign was in how Bush defined himself as a brave leader of his people during a time of war. As the Republican machine worked to construct this image of Bush as warrior, the reality was that our warrior President had shirked his responsibility to the military as a member of the Air National Guard in the Sixties and was losing the war in Iraq. Who better to counter the failed warrior President but John Kerry, a true Military hero who had earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts during his service in the Vietnam War? Yet as we know, the Republicans were able to paint a perception of Kerry as a coward and to even question whether he had, in fact, earned his medals. What was Kerry’s counter to G.O.P. slurs? Was it outrage or disgust? Was it anger or courage? No, it was a weak defense of his service that gave credence to the thought that he was hiding something. What was Kerry’s defining position on the war? That he had voted for it before he had voted against it.
The Republican’s ability to paint John Kerry as weak and unable to lead a country during a time of war is symbolic of the lack of strength and conviction that has defined the Democratic Party during the last few decades. Rather than appearing defiant and unified against President Bush and the increasingly unpopular war, the Democrats were so scared of taking a strong stand on the war that they lost an election that was completely and utterly winnable.
Nowhere is the lack of conviction and leadership historically more apparent than in a look at the Clinton/Gore Presidency, the golden years for the modern Democratic Party. President Clinton’s fight for the rights of gays in the military and for national health care collapsed almost immediately, and the rest of Clinton’s term was spend trying to be all things to all people. The tragedy of the Clinton/Gore Presidency is that their true triumph, their brilliant and efficient management of the American Government that led to a massive budget surplus, is not really known or understood by the bulk of Americans. And in his quest to distance himself from President Clinton during the 2004 election, even Al Gore chose not to run on the Clinton/Gore record of smaller and more effective government.
Gore As Jekyll/Hyde
A fascinating insight into the lack of moral leadership in the Democratic Party can be seen in the Jekyll/Hyde act that is Al Gore. The Al Gore that ran for President in 2000 was little more than a wooden parody who inspired few. However, once freed from the binds of representing his party, Gore became an Eco-warrior who has almost single-handedly made Global Warming the issue that it is today. Had Gore the candidate shown even a shred of the leadership and strength of conviction that he has shown in the past eight years, he would have won the Presidential election in a rout.
Clinton and Obama -Flaccid on Gays
With the 2008 Election close at hand, the Democrat’s complete lack of strength of character is once again defining who they are. When questioned last week whether they thought homosexuality was immoral, both Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama initially refused to answer the question. When pushed after their initial evasive responses, both Clinton and Obama finally admitted that they did not feel homosexuality was immoral. This tepid (and some would say, pathetic) response to a moral issue from the two leading Democratic Presidential candidates coupled with the Democrats flaccid non-binding resolution against the war show that moral leadership is lacking throughout the party.
The Democratic Party of 2007 is not a party of strength and conviction; it’s a party of convenience and compromise. Given their current lack of leadership, it’s a wonder that the Democratic Party was ever able to lead America in the Civil Rights, the Women’s Rights, and the Environmental Movements. How was it that Lyndon Johnson, the otherwise unpopular president during the Vietnam War was able help usher in Civil Rights in a deeply racially divided but white majority country? Johnson accomplished it through strength of conviction and an iron will. Strength of conviction was the tool with which FDR was able to define America through the New Deal. Strength of conviction has been the way the Republicans have been able to fight an unjust war said to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, while at the same time they are taking away the rights of gays and minorities here at home. As repugnant as many of us believe their beliefs to be, the Republicans have reshaped America because they believe what they are doing is right and just.
If the Democrats are to deserve victory in the 2008 Presidential Election, they need to be unified in their belief that we must end the war as soon as possible, that the way to truly support the troops is to bring them home from Iraq. If the Democrats are to deserve victory in 2008, they need to be unified in their belief that the government is here to support the needs of all Americans, not just the rich and politically well connected. If the Democrats are to deserve to win in 2008 they need to be unified in the belief that the way to truly make America great is to protect the rights and insure the health and well-being of all its citizens, not just the heterosexuals, the Christians and the rich. If the Democrats are to deserve victory, they need to define themselves are a party that believes in being something other than the loyal opposition.