Ann Salisbury and Jeff Cooper want me to adjust my medication. They think that I am misreading the Democratic Party in my post below, and ask me (thoughtfully, as friends do) to step back and reconsider.
I need to do some homework; itll take some time with Google and if I can get into it, Lexis. This is a crazy week, and Im going to try and go to Comdex for a day next week, so give me a few days for a concrete reply. But heres the deal.
I know a bunch of Democrats. I know people who run Democratic campaigns. I know people who are Democratic elected officials. Theyre my friends, and I love them, and genuinely believe they are trying to do good, and often succeeding.
Every day, I read the L.A. Times, the Daily Breeze, and the Wall Street Journal cover to cover. I read CNN.com and all the blogs on my blogroll pretty much daily (all the ones with *s every day, and many others); I probably spend an hour or so a day reading. I subscribe to The Atlantic, Harpers, Granta, and Scientific American, along with a bunch of business, technology, and motorcycle magazines, and I read them all as soon as I get them. I pick up The Economist every other month.
I dont say this to make myself out as some kind of font of knowledge, but to say both that Ive got some direct knowledge and that Im a pretty voracious media consumer (with the exception of TV and talk radio), and Ill tell you now that when I think of Democratic patriotism, I still somehow cant get the image of Michael Dukakis sitting in a M-1 Abrams out of my mind.
The brand impression that I have of the Democratic Party includes many things; it includes compassion, justice, equality
but it doesnt include patriotism.
The very word patriotism makes me cringe a little bit as I say it, and thats a problem.
This was triggered as I started to write an appreciation to all the American soldiers who had served. As I wrote, I started worrying about my phrasing. I was worried about being criticized for not qualifying my praise for the ones who had served in unjust wars, or who had somehow acted badly, or who had extended imperialism.
Maybe the folks I know are just a little to left liberal. Maybe my filters, because of my personal history are just set in a certain way so I see that a little more.
Maybe this is a problem that exists only in my head.
or maybe not. And if not
if Im right, and the anti-American left has managed to create the brand all liberals have to live with
then we liberals have a much bigger problem to deal with, and we’d better start dealing with it.
Lets dig a little and see.
(11/12: fixed dumb error re Dukakis’ name, added some emphasis, cleaned up some grammar)
Speaking as an outsider looking into the liberal/Democratic worldview, I think AL
is right.
Apply Liberally
A post by Armed Liberal got me into rant mode. Here’s his post. I originally planned to post in his comments, but chose, instead, to spare his readers – it
I think you’ve put your finger on a cultural perception of the Democratic party.
Just like the Republicans of not-so-long-ago couldn’t talk about civil rights without people seeing the white hoods and cloaks, there’s a real problem when your average Democrat can’t talk about patriotism without invoking the shadow of the Weathermen, Black Panthers, and Hanoi Jane.
It’s certainly one of the main things that drove me away from the party.
Ray nails it even better than AL did. Memo to the Democrats: in the current climate, those “peace march” signs and visit to Baghdad are the equivalent of white hoods and burning crosses.
You can protest all you like that the mainstay of the party is not like that… just as the Republicans did in the 50s. To about the same effect. And, for the same reason.
If you were involved in the civil rights movement, you knew that the Republicans had a point, but that high profile (hello, John Birch Society) and non-trivial groups within it either winked at racist activities or suported policies (hello, “states’ rights”) that masked a far uglier agenda. That’s pretty much where the Left (and the Democratic party) is at right now.
The saying is that it takes 3 elections to teach politicos anything. Since many Dems don’t accept 2000 as a defeat, that means we can expect a clue to begin sometime around 2006-2008.
Meanwhile, AL, tell your leftist friends to enjoy their hoods. Maybe the shock of the comparison will help them see themselves as others see them, and speed the clue process.
I came here through a link by Instapundit and will add this site to my “favorites” list. I think it apparent from your comments, however, where one large problem exists with liberals and the left. You said:
“This was triggered as I started to write an appreciation to all the American soldiers who had served. As I wrote, I started worrying about my phrasing. I was worried about being criticized for not qualifying my praise for the ones who had served in unjust wars, or who had somehow acted badly, or who had extended imperialism.”
Your worry about the expected criticism is telling. Recognition and tribute to the heroism and hardships of veterans cannot be conditioned upon the perceived merits of the cause for which they fought. Whether your expectation of criticism was met or not, the fact that it was expected is a symptom of the problem. Individual veterans bear no responsibility for the merits of the cause for which they fought, and respect due to them should not be conditioned upon such considerations. In fact, they may have a different view of the morality and justice of their efforts.
I must confess that I was a Marine (happy 227th birthday, Marine Corps) rifleman in Viet Nam, assigned to a line infantry company. My personal view is that our (the allies, research how many different countries assisted the U.S. in Viet Nam) efforts on behalf of the people and government of Viet Nam was morally correct. I think subsequent events in southeast Asia support my view. But such disagreements are understandable. The veteran’s view can as easily be based upon validation (justifying his own service) or superior knowledge and understanding of the “cause”. I know of no objective method of determining whether the veteran or, for lack of better term, civilian is correct.
This disagreement as to the merits of the conflict does not, however, diminish in any way the nature of the veterans service, nor should it bear any impact upon the equal treatment accorded to ALL veterans. It is the service that is honored, not the cause. Until the left internalizes this distinction it will fail to achieve credibility in national security issues.
Neville:
That was exactly what triggered this; my realization that instead of simply and directly honoring the men and women who defend this country, I was suddenly laying on qualifications. That’s when the light went on in my head…
…and, directly, thank you for your service (and reading, and the comment).
A.L.
AL,
I had some of those same thoughts as I considered Veterans Day (I’m a Vietnam era vet -infantry-, but thankfully ended up in Korea instead of Vietnam).
It seems to me that one of the legacies of the Vietnam War (with a big push by rightwing-nuts) has been to confuse questioning national policies with anti-americanism. And at the same time it has equated being in the military with being rightwing.
We Democrats have allowed the right to equate “liberal” with “leftwing-nut”. I believe the vast majority of Democrats are liberals of the moderate stripe. Why have we allowed terms like “liberal”, or “card-carrying-ACLU-member” for that matter, to be equated with over-the-top political views?
We’ve allowed the very definitions we use in discourse to be controlled by one faction. Somehow, we’ve got to change that. And as others have said, the first thing to do is clearly define the principals (not the tactics) we’re for, and who we are.
BTW, I’m sure you know Dukakis’s name isn’t George. Maybe you have W on the brain 🙂
In a slightly different vein, but IMO germane to the topic is todays Jeanne D’Arc comment:
http://bodyandsoul.blogspot.com/2002_11_10_bodyandsoul_archive.html#84418125
DOOOH…that’s what I get for blogging past my bedtime…error corrected…
A.L.
AL
Those lights sure are bright in there, aren’t they. I’ve had them going off periodically for the last 30 years. Enlightenment is fun. I expect I will have a few flash bulbs myself as I read your pages, just as I get them from the Professor and the Captain.
Just like the Republicans of not-so-long-ago couldn’t talk about civil rights without people seeing the white hoods and cloaks
I MUST point out that historically the Democrats are the party that defended slavery, and after slavery gave us Jim Crow, and Segregation. They were the party of the KKK, and of Governor George Wallace. Now today they are the party of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who send the same message as the KKK and the George Wallaces, only toward anyone who ISN’T black. Yet they call Republicans racist. Pathetic.
Republicans didn’t see white hoods when talking civil rights.
You people are having serious memory haze.
Let us not forget Robert(ex-KKK) Byrd. And Albert Gore Sr,who, was a racist bigot that voted against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say “in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts.” Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed.
We Democrats have allowed the right to equate “liberal” with “leftwing-nut”.
Hey, Like my Mom say’s- what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Republicans are villified by the left as racist thugs – and it is wrong. You say it enough it stick’s whether it’s right or wrong.
Rosemary–
I cannot allow the equation of historical Dixiecrats with today’s Democrats to go unchallenged.
Yes, the people who defended slavery (in 1860!) were called “Democrats.” And yes, the South in the pre-civil rights era was dominated by the Democratic Party.
The Democrats, however, under Kennedy and Johnson, promoted the cause of civil rights. Nixon then embarked on the “Southern strategy,” using racial issues to turn the South Republican. A lot of current Southern Republicans are former Democrats who switched parties. Off the top of my head: Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Charles Pickering Sr., Phil Gramm.
The attempt to saddle current Democrats with the legacy of the segregationist South is laughable. The equation of Jesse Jackson with the old George Wallace is hideously offensive. (And what office does Sharpton hold?)
The Republicans’ record on civil rights remains dubious; there’s a reason why black voters are so overwhelmingly Democratic. Democrats’ record on patriotism is a lot better than Republicans’ on civil rights. It’s time to spread the word.
Rosemary, while you are quite correct that at one time the Democrats were the party of racism, you are ignoring the last 30 years. The Democrats drove the racists out, and the Republicans welcomed them in.
By 1972 the racist southern Democrats had been quite clearly out of step with the majority of the party ever since JFK. Some southerners, led by George Wallace, had formed a third party, because voting for the party of Lincoln was still unthinkable. Then in ’72, the radical wing of the Dems took control and drove out the racists, along with all other ideologically impure.
So you’d think that George Wallace’s third party would have picked up most of the South’s old guard, right? But instead, Jesse Helms and the like soon found a congenial home in the Republican party. Not that I want to call Republicans racists – most aren’t – but they sure were opportunists. It didn’t matter what Helms’ politics were, they wanted that added Senate seat.
Thought a bit more about this, and I must make one emendation to my last post. Starting about 1972, the Dems drove out those racists who were prejudiced against blacks and the Republicans welcomed them. However, the Democratic party still contains plenty of racists – they’re just prejudiced in the opposite direction, like Jesse Jackson.
For the Democrats to return towards normalcy, it should take a page from William “El Pantalones!” Clinton.
Repudiate the wingnuts.
Attack the professors who claim that Zionism equals genocide. Villify the university presidents who don’t have the balls to stand up to harebrained activists who want to ban the flag at memorials. Stand up against the double standards of political correctness.
For better or worse, many people perceive the Democrats as the party that defends these outrages, and the first step is to break that stereotype.
Unfortunately, the nomination of Nancy Pelosi will probably doom the Dems in ’04, and perhaps longer.
markm–
Since I agree with most of what you say–except I think the anti-black racists were leaving the Democratic party before ’72–I have to ask, why do you think Jesse Jackson is a racist? Perhaps I’ve missed something.
(Comparing him to the old George Wallace, however, is off the charts, IMO, unless Jesse wants to implement reverse Jim Crow. I mean, literally, reverse Jim Crow; aggressive affirmative action doesn’t count.)
Oh–and when I say the Republicans’ record on civil rights is dubious, I don’t mean that most of them are racists. What I’d say is, most Republicans don’t want to do enough to repair the persistent racial inequalities in this country.
AL
I’ve kept track of the comments on this thread to see if I could learn anything useful. Unfortunately, I have. Nobody is concerned with the import of your insight. Rather they are more concerned with which party is/was racist, and what is the significance of that denomination. Hopefully the comments on your posts will improve.
A few points need to be made for historical accuracy:
1) There was no “purge” of racists and segregationists from the Democratic Party. There was also no mass migration of racists/segregationists/anti-blacks to the Republican Party. This is a widespread myth.
There was an effort made by Nixon in 1968 to win over McGovern voters with a strong anti-crime stance that pointed to civil unrest in the black community. That was the gist of the entire much-vaunted “southern strategy.” It worked. But this is a far cry from saying the racists left the Democratic Party. They did not.
The late Richard Nixon, by the way, while he made a play for some racist votes 34 years ago with his anti-crime stance, was a lifelong NAACP supporter who, once in office, had a pretty good civil rights record, including creating the EEOC and expanding on other civil-rights legislation.
2) Since when were Trent Lott and Phil Gramm old enough to have been segregationists? They’re conservatives, not racists.
It’s true that former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond is still in the Senate. Then again, so is former KKK Kleagle and arch-segregationist Robert Byrd, now hailed by Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”
3) Once again it should be repeated: there was no mass purge of segregationists and racists from the Democratic Party. Where this myth comes from I have no idea. Arch-segregationist William Fullbright, young Bill Clinton’s mentor, died a Democrat.
So did arch-segregationist George Wallace, who was still in office until the 1980s, and still a Democrat.
4) By the way, Jesse Jackson and George Wallace were friends. After Wallace recanted his racist ways, he made young Jesse Jackson one of his proteges.
What? Recanted racist ways? Can you do that? Well, apparently Democrats can, but Republicans can’t?
5) The Republican Party’s stance on race has always been that black people deserve equal rights. That has been their stance as a party since the 1800s, and has never changed.
The Democratic Party’s position has changed, much to their credit. On the other hand, they still support racist policies, such as racial quotas and “hate crime” laws that are not applied uniformly based on race.
6) Indeed, by any historical measure, the Republican Party’s record on race has always been more reliably anti-racist than the Democratic Party’s. That doesn’t mean that they haven’t, or cannot, clean up their act. Many Democrats have been very noble and brave anti-racists. But let’s get over this myth–this silly fabrication–that they were ever “the civil rights party.” Pick any significant civil rights legislation of the last 100 years–100 years I said!–and you will find Republicans behind most of it, and Democrats against most of it.
Pick any 20-year period in American history and you will find that this is still true.
A number of blacks who are old enough remember that this was always so. For more on this, you may want to read the discussion here:
ROSA PARKS LAMENTS.
I think the question is not What Makes Democrats Unpatriotic, but rather What Makes Republicans Patriotic? Seriously, what is so damn patriotic about being a Republican? Is patriotism identified nowadays with blind nationalism rather than a true adherence to the liberal ideals which founded this country?
The fact that Democrats are identified with Hanoi Jane rather than Gene McCarthy and Bob Kerrey is the fault of political spinners and Republican media cash, not the Democrats themselves.
Mogadishu Democrats
This post is about the centrist Democrats who see the importance of the natinal defence issue, but can’t seem to shake some crippling beliefs and behaviours. Let’s call them “Mogadishu Democrats.”