Two Doses of Tough Love
By Tara Ross
Many liberal leaders in the Democratic Party became increasingly spiteful, mean, and partisan as this year's presidential campaign wore on. Their words and actions will have tangible ramifications for President Bush's second term, but perhaps in a different manner than one might anticipate.
(Okay, so I'm already losing at least a handful of my Democratic readers--hang in there! It gets better, and my points affect both sides of the political aisle.)
The spiteful tactics of these liberal Democrats bother me for a reason that may surprise many. That reason is found in Proverbs 27:17--As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
The language and strategies of the Democratic Party, led by these liberals, have deteriorated to such a point in recent months that the party is no longer able to act like iron. It instead has all the strength of a cotton ball. One of the primary ramifications of its softening will be to hurt--yes, hurt--the Republican Party, despite Republican wins in November.
(To my hardy Democratic readers: Try switching the party labels where possible. Maybe it will help you make it through the rest of the article.)
Many Democratic leaders have become so nasty and unscrupulous in recent months that Republicans have no worthy adversary in the political arena--but every political entity needs an honest competitor. Without the accountability provided by a strong opponent, any political entity eventually deteriorates, at least to some degree.
The Democratic Party must regain its ability to act like iron if our political system is to regain its strength. Many good, honest Democrats at home, outside Washington, care deeply about their party. My sincere hope is that they will work to rid the party of its dishonest leaders, restoring it to the decent and scrupulous competitor that it once was.
During Bush's first term, many liberal Democratic leaders in Washington sunk to new lows. Senate Democrats filibustered an unprecedented *ten* federal judges. As a point of comparison, no federal judicial appointment had ever been killed via filibuster prior to Bush's presidency. Yet these liberal Senators did not stop with filibustering judges. Their obstructionist, partisan tactics were taken to such an extreme that the *Wall Street Journal* labeled the Senate a "Dead Zone," led by (recently defeated) Minority Leader Tom Daschle. The Senate, the *Journal* opined, is the "place where good ideas go to die."
These partisan actions on the part of leading liberal Democrats have been accompanied by increasingly shrill rhetoric.
Early in the year, the President recess appointed a judge, Charles Pickering, to the federal judiciary. Irresponsible liberal Democratic leaders blasted the President for appointing a "racist" man who "worked closely with southern segregationist leaders" during the 1960s. Such allegations continue to be thrown around, despite the fact that all evidence points to the exact opposite situation: Pickering actually worked closely with the FBI to stop Ku Klux Klan violence in the 1960s. He was among the first to send his children to integrated schools, despite the availability of a private school close to his home. (And, anyway, didn't we forgive Democrat Senator Robert Byrd for his involvement with the Ku Klux Klan so many years ago, recognizing that he is committed to civil rights today?)
But the strident liberals currently leading the Democratic Party don't let a little thing like truth stand in the way of a good sound bite. They have made up stories on other fronts as well.
Their most prominent fabrication during this year's election was the claim that "Bush lied" to the country about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. An honest Democratic Party might say, at most, that the President was mistaken about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. He certainly did not tell an intentional lie. To the contrary, President Bill Clinton argued for the need to eliminate Iraq's weapons program long before Bush's presidency. On February 18, 1998, for instance, CNN reported one of Clinton's then-existing foreign policy goals. Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Many liberals in the Democratic Party have let their hatred of Bush color their judgment in numerous instances. In the short term, Republicans have reaped the gains. In the long term, the deterioration of the Democratic Party will hurt Republicans--and thus all Americans--as well.
We need an honest and competitive Democratic Party. No party is perfect; each has its strengths and weaknesses. The parties serve the country best when they balance each other out.
In many ways, the strength of our political system relies upon two strong, honest parties. Each party, therefore, has a responsibility to fulfill during Bush's second term. Good and honorable Democrats across the country should take this opportunity to work at restoring their party to the honest competitor that it once was--and could be again. In the meantime, Republican elected officials need to be careful. An extra degree of responsibility, wisdom, and care will be required during Bush's second term.
Without political competition, it is easy for anyone to let power go to their heads. We are all human, after all.
Republicans have important and valuable public policy initiatives that need to be passed during the next four years. They should work for those ideas with zeal and enthusiasm. However, they will serve their country best if they also show an extra degree of vigilance during this political season.
Tara Ross is a regular columnist for TAEmag.com and the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
