Help me respond to a blood boiling op-ed piece

[linazelle]

I don't normally read the papers but I found this piece of trash in the break room at work today. (See italicized info below.)

I started a response, but due to lack of time, I can't finish it--plus, I'm missing some facts like the impacts of Social Security, etc. What I see overall from this mindless tripe is the author making light of our opposition without any distinction between there being a need to oppose some things because of their import vs. opposing just for the sake of opposing--like Newt and company did.




Here's what I started:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2005 you printed the comments of one Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford University whose skewed commentary claimed democratic reactions to some of the most ground breaking political issues ever as "knee-jerk hysteria." Davis calls the Democrat's current opposition levels unprecedented but fails to acknowledge the unprecedented legislation that the Bush administration is trying to ram down America's throats.

The proposed overhaul of social security would drastically reduce the benefits of millions of Americans, dismantle a system that is at least solvent for the next two to three decades and that would remains 75% solvent from then on should be opposed. The Bush administration's plans to funnel the profits from this dismantling would to Wall Street should be questioned. Hanson sounds like the empty-headed Britney Spears who told Michael Moore, "we should trust our President." Should we? No matter what?

The nomination of John Bolton as UN ambassador, was opposed by republicans as well as democrats, because the individual awarded this post is critical. America has acted in an unprecendented way, attacking a sovereign nation that posed to threat to the citizen of this country and ignoring UN agreements which have stood for decades. Placing a person who has openly stated he is opposed to the cooperative body that is the UN is not something to be taken lightly.

And then there's Iraq. There's not enough room here to begin to address the catastrophic degrees of corruption and mismanagement that have gone into the quagmire in Iraq. Billions of taxpayer dollars, misappropriated funds, lies to justify war, outing of CIA spies to subvert the truth...rotten food being fed to soldiers by Halliburton/KBR, theft of taxpayer money by Halliburton...

When you fail to look at the implications and context of each of these major issues, it's easy to say that Democrats are just reacting in frustration. In my experience, the Republican party of today wants its followers to ignore the implications--the same way that Hanson conveniently ommitted them from his surface piece. That's just what the regressive republican party wants its followers to do. It makes it so much easier for them to vote against their own best interests.

There's so much more to be said about the generalities that Hanson presents. For instance, he claims that Republicans are now a diverse party--citing about 5 non-white-anglo people from an enormous base? The democratic party is not the one in need of diversity in comparison here. Our numbers speak for themselves. Other misinformation regarding the 50-50 approval for the Bush administration policies is a lie. George Bush now "enjoys" a 43% approval rating and even that is slipping.

.................

I'd appreciate your help organizing, adding to, this response. Thanks a bunch.



Milwaukee Journal sentinel Wed. July 15
Victor Davis Hanson, historian, Stanford Univ. Hoover Institution

Who are Reactionaries now?

John Bolton's confirmation hearing for US ambassador to the UN drags on. The upcoming Supreme Court nomination, the future of Social Security and Iraq prompt knee-jerk hysteria from the Democrats in lieu of a concrete counteragenda about running the country.

Then, of course, there's the Democratic National Committee chairman, Howard Dean, who can't stop ranting. Recently, he averred that a lot of Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives" and that the GOP is "pretty much a white Christian party."

We've seen such infantile negativism before, and it leads nowhere. The Republicans of 1964 were a red-hot bunch--out of power, hard-right and on thew wrong side of civil rights. During the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, Democrats were no better, resorting to demonizing Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. More recently, many Republicans descended into a mindless, obsessive hatred of Bill Clinton.

But the current Democratic furor and obstructionism are unprecendented and obviously self-defeating. How can we make sense of the Democrats' behavior?

First, the past two presidential elections have been extremely close. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and only narrowly won in 2004. Polls continue to reveal a 50-50 divide over most of his policies.

Yet, under our two-party system of majority rule, that close split is not reflected in the sharing of real political power. So the majority of state governorships and legislatures remain Republican controlled. The Senate, the House and the presidency are all in the hands of conservatives, and the Supreme Court will soon be as well.

In response, an understandably frustrated opposition seeks some sort of countermove. But instead of the hard, necessary work of winning the public over to a systematic alternative vision, the democratic leadership seems to be hoping that a quickie scandal, a noisy filibuster or a slip overseas will tip a few million voters and thus return the democrats to power.

Second, while the Democrats bellow, the Republican have been systematically trespassing onto Democratic territory. An African-American secretary of state was succeeded by an African American woman, previously the first female national security advisor. The first Hispanic Attorney gneral is now also one of the candidates being considered for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The national chariman of the Republican Party is Jewish.

Republicans learned long ago that they have to reach out beyond the blueblood and moneyed classes. And, they're getting added help given that so many democratic figureheads--such as John Kerry, Dean, George Soros and Ted Kennedy--come across as privileged and out of touch. MoveOn.org and People for the American Way were always Berkely and Malibu-bred, not grassroots expressions of Des Moines and El Paso.

Third, fresh Democratic voices like the sensible New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the moderate-sounding Illinois Senator Barack Obama and even the newly repackaged New York Senator Hillary Clinton are often drowned out by geriatiric Democratic retreads. Can't the Democrats find spokesmen other than a calcified Kerry, Kennedy, Joe Biden or Al Gore--who all crashed in past general presidental elections or primaries and now drip bitterness? How do you politely tell your leadership that it, not just George W. Bush, is the problem? Even those well known Democratic luminaries who haven't failed at running for the presidency--like Sens. Feinstein and Boxer and Rep. Pelosi--hardly represent a diverse electorate, unless residence within 100 miles of San Francisco reflects middle America.

Fourth, the foreign policy of the Bush administration has put Democrats in another exasperating dilemma. Usually Republicans are caricatured as selfish isolationists or dour realists, not the muscular idealists of the Truman or JFK stripe that many are today.

Michael Moore's and other's cries of "no blood for oil" might have found resonance with the public in 1991. But yanking troops out of Saudi Arabia and staying on to try to implant democracy in Iraq (while watching the price of gas skyrocket) represent something quite different from protecting unelected despots who pump oil.

The Democrats should be focusing on new issues and faces and promoting national optimism and an overdue return to a more inclusive broader-based populism. Instead, the leading members of the party choose to fixate on Bolton and try to ankle-bite a wartime president working to bring democracy to the Middle East.

Apparently, the liberal opposition thinks sarcasm and negativism can reverse the larger political tide of the past three decades. Good luck.

[AllegroRondo]

1. About Social Security

be sure to point out that Bush's plan actually makes SS go bankrupt FASTER than doing nothing. Thats supposed to be a plan to fix it?

On polls, point out that the Disapproval rating for Bush is over 50%, and that his approval rating is the lowest ever for any second term president at this point in the term. Even Nixon had better ratings, and Watergate was going on.

[linazelle]

3. Thanks. I'll add that. nt

[formerrepuke]

2. The article is well written, even if we disagree with the sentiment...

The opposition to Bolton, among other things, is an opposition to PNAC, and countless other machinations of the RW agenda.. Attempting to block Bolton is only part of an (admittedly flimsy, so far) Lib-Dem response to a larger menace..like stabbing Godzilla in the toe with a pen-knife. The references to 'elitist' Berkeley, San Francisco, Malibu are tired RW stereotypes (I've never been to any of those places, and I'm plenty liberal). The 'sarcasm' of which the writer laments is widespread, and it's the Repugs who are responsible for it. That's all I got.. good luck.

[linazelle]

4. I apologize for the typos. They will be fixed. I was in a rush. nt

[linazelle]

5. kick for help...nt

[linazelle]

6. .