How the Democrats view the election

A summary of the Democrats’ responses to the election. They see it as nothing less than a historic defeat, a turning point in the long history of the Democratic party. But they seem lost as to what to do about it. Andrei Cherny, a former Kerry aide and speechwriter, says in the New York Times that the Democrats lost the election because they lack a vision appropriate to this supposed post-big government age that we are in; but instead of proposing a vision, he admits that he has no idea what that vision ought to be, a confession that hardly bodes well for the Democrats’ future. Meanwhile, that nasty little all-Democratic-partisan-all-the-time columnist, E.J. Dionne, is angry and distraught that those evil Republicans could actually win by three and a half million votes. He calls on his fellow Dems to re-tool their ideology. But what does he have in mind? Look at this:

What’s required is a sustained and intellectually serious effort by religious moderates and progressives to insist that social justice and inclusion are “moral values” and that war and peace are “life issues.” As my wife and I prepared our three kids for school the day after the day after, we shared our outrage that we in Blue America are cast as opponents of “family values” simply because we don’t buy the right wing’s agenda. No political faction can be allowed to assert a monopoly on the family.

Now this is too much. Dionne apparently thinks he’s proposing something that’s never been done before by anyone on the left: to redefine “moral values” as, well, as leftism. But of course, that’s what liberals do all the time. How many times have you heard a Democrat say to a Republican: “You say you believe in moral values, but where is your morality when it comes to social justice [i.e. socialism], inclusion, and equal marriage rights for gays? You’re a hypocrite.” And Dionne actually thinks that adopting this tired-out, thoroughly dishonest ploy is the key to the Democrats’ chances of winning back voters who went Republican out of opposition to the cultural left! If Dionne’s thinking is the index of where the post-2004 election Democrats are coming from, they are going to keep losing elections for many moons to come.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 05, 2004 01:40 AM | Send

Sort of the mirror image of Republican triumphalism. Everything is so emotionally driven now. I’ve seen a few Republicans comparing this election to Reagan’s of two decades ago. That’s ridiculous. Reagan won 58 percent of the vote against Mondale, as I recall. Bush got 51 percent in a time of war against a terrible candidate.

A historic defeat? We’ll the more they think that, the more they will act defeated, which is a good thing. I somehow doubt that the Hildebeast is wallowing in a mud-puddle of self-pity though. The plans are undoubtedly well under way for 2008.

Posted by: Carl on November 5, 2004 2:11 AM

The Liberals think no political faction, save themselves, must be allowed to monopolize the family. If the liberal, leftist, Democratic alliance were to fully succeed, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be them doing all the monopolizing. Yes, I’m calling them dangerous hypocrites.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 5, 2004 2:41 AM

I see a parallel between the redefinition of “moral values” to be just socialist redistribution, and the redefinition of Christian faith in the liberal mainline churches as lobbying government for various programs. Forget taking care of widows and orphans yourself, or through your church in your own community. A Christian proves his faith in these churches by advocating that government take everyone’s money and take care of the poor through impersonal, remotely administered programs.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on November 5, 2004 10:21 AM

I glanced at a column by Timothy Noah on Slate. Noah, in passing, wrote that some Democrats are simply waiting for demographics to give them the country.

Posted by: David on November 5, 2004 11:00 AM

David writes:
“Noah, in passing, wrote that some Democrats are simply waiting for demographics to give them the country.”

This is rather like the difference between militant Islamists and more moderate Moslems. Smart Moslems know that they just have to wait, immigrate, and have big families in order to dominate the future, because the West will take care of itself. Dumb ones think they have to crash airplanes into buildings. Smart lefties know they just have to wait in order to become dominant as Bush brings the suicide of right-liberalism to completion. What they will do about the Caliphate following on their heels, and what cultural and material resources will remain to do it, is anyone’s guess.

Posted by: Matt on November 5, 2004 12:33 PM

Matt comments: “What they [the left] will do about the Caliphate following on their heels, and what cultural and material resources will remain to do it, is anyone’s guess.”

I think they will allow the Caliphate to destroy them. Father Seraphim Rose described liberalism and its ultimate destination - suicidal nihilism - more than three decades ago. There will probably be a few, perhaps the decayed rump of neoconservatism, who will insist that the Muslims will be corrupted by our degenerate culture before they are able conquer it. The mainstream leftsts will end up like Theo Van Gogh, nihilists who rejoice in death - especially that of our civilization. Unlike Van Gogh, most leftists wouldn’t even consider questioning - much less ridiculing - the practices of their sacred Islamic cows. The Caliphate will be glad to oblige their death wish, of course.

Posted by: Carl on November 5, 2004 1:30 PM

Well one losing Democrat probably is viewing election quite differently.

Democratic challenger Cynthia Matthews took 42.8 percent against David Dreier 53.7 in Southern California congressional race in a very Republican district.

Rep. Dreier won re-election Tuesday, but he did so by the slimmest margin in his career. It was also the smallest margin of victory for any incumbent congressman in California this election.

At first blush, the win looks decisive. But for a 12-term congressman who has never won with less than 57 percent of the vote, the numbers show he was hurt by a series of radio and Internet attacks that took issue with his record on illegal immigration.

David Dreier had been the target of a “Fire Dreier” campaign by two popular radio talk-show hosts seeking to stiffen the spines of lawmakers on immigration (with a career grade of B- on immigration, Dreier was “voted off the island” by the program’s listeners for being insufficiently tough on the issue).

His opponent — a lesbian environmentalist — did as well as she did in this Republican district because she boarded the Fire Dreier train and ran as one of the nation’s few pro-immigration-control Democrats.

“I’ve heard the message from voters, and that is about the problem of illegal immigration, and I share that concern”, Dreier said Wednesday.

It seems that one Open Border ideologue is newtered and all it took was an effort by 2, albeit very popular, radio talkers.

More info on “Political Human Sacriface” campaign is here

Posted by: Mik on November 5, 2004 1:53 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):