As we look down the barrel of the November elections, one simple question has to be asked — why do the Republicans even have a chance? The American public is tired of the war, tired of George W. Bush, tired of Republican economic policies, and wakes up every day to newspapers telling them how tired they are and goes to bed bathed in the glow of television — with pundits saying how tired they are, too.
But the Iowa electronic markets recently showed the price of a GOP-hold-both-houses contract as more than twice — 48.3 vs. 21.9 — the next highest contract, which is a GOP Senate and Democratic House. Historically, the Iowa markets have been better predictors than polls; accepting that the truth lies somewhere between the markets and the most partisan Democratic polls — the question is still why the heck is it so close?
Jim Geraghty (who is also an Examiner Blog Boarder and, in the interests of full disclosure, cites me in the book) just wrote a book that proposes to explain why. The thesis of “Voting to Kill” is that the Democratic abandonment — real and perceived — of strong defense is driving a structural change in party alignment in favor of the GOP.
Simply put, voters believe that the GOP will kill our enemies, and don’t believe the Democrats can or will. I’ll declare my bias: As an analyst, I agree with the core analysis conceptually, and as a voter — a liberal Democrat who voted for Bush over Kerry for exactly that reason — it hits me personally as well.
Having said that, I think it’s a still a good argument made by an ultimately frustrating book. A part of this criticism is doubtless haste — current affairs books have to reach the shelves quickly or they become history books instead.
Geraghty piles anecdote on telling anecdote to make the point that the Democrats really do think that sitting and talking is a better way to confront national enemies than killing them. During the Iran hostage crisis, Geraghty quotes Carter: “In his memoir, ‘Keeping Faith,’ Carter called his approach ‘a cautious and prudent policy in order to preserve their [the hostages’] lives during the preceding 14 months.’ ”
He then cites Ronald Reagan at his first inaugural: “When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.” The contrast in tone (and as we showed in Libya — in action) is clear, and Geraghty continues to paint it, for the GH Bush era, as well as the Clinton era.
Here, the book is trapped by its style — because he is making a point by accreting anecdotes rather than setting out theories — and it takes four long chapters for him to make his case; and it remains somewhat unsatisfying.
My primary wish for the book is that he had dipped a little more into theory — or into the cultural anthropology of the Democratic Party. Because it’s now led by people like me — by the cohort that came of age during Vietnam and the aftermath of the Summer of Love. In The New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal writes about a protest concert with CSN & Y and wistfully — mourns the fact that, “This, perhaps, is the ultimate difference between the Vietnam generation and the Iraq generation: When you hear Young and company sing of “four dead in Ohio,” their Kent State anthem, it’s hard to imagine anyone on today’s campuses willing to face armed troops. Is there anything they care about that much?”
The leadership of the intellectual engines of our society — academia, media, journalism, policy — all look back with the same hazy nostalgia at the mixture of purpose, license and power they think we had back then. It would have been interesting to trace the roots — cultural and intellectual — of the Democratic Party leadership and the thousands of staffers, analysts and thinkers who make up the bones of the party.
I wish Geraghty had done that, because it would make the division between D and R on defense so much clearer.
Because he’s right: The issue of defense, and the inability of the national party to do more than say “Bush screwed up!” as a campaign slogan is the thumb on the scales that keeps tipping things back toward the GOP.
I wish it weren’t so, and I wish that the Democratic leadership would read the book and pay attention to the issue. I have a feeling they will in late November.
Excerpt from “Voting to Kill” by Jim Geraghty
“This is all looking at elected officials, celebrities, or armchair strategists blogging their philosophies on the internet. But when ordinary members of the party behave badly, it also reflects badly on the whole.
“Take, for example, a postelection rally in San Francisco on Wednesday, Nov. 3, the day after the election. Many Democrats were devastated by the election results in 2004; it’s understandable that the emotions would be raw.
“But the manifestations of that disappointment and anger suggested that these angry liberals hated not merely Bush but Bush voters and were looking for a way to lash out at them. The crowd waved signs reading‘F-k Middle America,’ ‘Can we secede already?’ ‘I’m ashamed to be an American,’ ‘Bush=Satan,’ ‘The flag is not a blindfold: Investigate the CIA for 9/11’
“As the protests continued into the evening, someone started burning George Bush in effigy. After torching the effigy, the angry crowd ignited an upside-down American flag and cheered its consumption by the flames. Bloggers took photos. Middle America noticed.
“For another vibrant example of how ordinary liberals can shape the Democratic Party’s image to its detriment, examine the 256-page picture book Sorry Everybody that costs $14.95. The book declares itself to be an ‘open letter of apology from America to the rest of the world …’
“The entries speak for themselves: ‘I’m not sure how, or why it happened. I thought our country was literate. I’m rather ashamed of the 51 percent.’ ‘Half of Ohio is really, really sorry. Don’t hate us.’ (One wonders from the almost groveling, fearful tone, is the apology intended for French elites or al-Qaeda?)
Marc Danziger is a member of The Examiner Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at Windsofchange.net.
