Memo to the Clintons: Democrats Aren’t Republicans (or Independents)

| | Comments (5)

by shep

The most salient feature of the Republican Movement is that it is authoritarian based. By that I mean that it is made up mostly of people who are animated by the compulsion to follow their leaders and defeat their enemies. Explicit proof of this fact, beside the well-established social science, can be found in the presidency of George W. Bush.

In six short years, we have watched Republicans abandon every so-called principle that supposedly motivated their political behavior prior to that time. While they practically pissed themselves at the sight of Janet Reno (of all people) and jack-booted UN thugs in black helicopters (of all things) they have enthusiastically defended the Bush/Cheney expansion of the police state, including secret government kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention of American citizens, secret electronic spying on Americans, and the near destruction of Habeas Corpus and other Bill of Rights protections.

In a single presidential term, they moved from shamelessly persecuting and impeaching a popular president for prevaricating about consensual oral sex in a (politically-driven) civil suit, all ostensibly in fervent support of the rule of law, to re-electing a president who’s vice president orchestrated a conspiracy to expose an entire clandestine operation working against weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. This after deceiving the public into a disastrous war of aggression, occupation and nation-building, ostensible to thwart weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. Speaking of which, this is the same Republican Party and George W. Bush that savaged the Clinton Administration for…wait for it…unnecessary aggression and nation building in Bosnia and Kosovo.

From “small government” and fiscal discipline fanatics, to supporting the most inefficient, spend-drunk, corrupt, government-expanding government in US history, under complete Republican rule. From denouncing “activist judges” to cheering a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court as it regularly ignored and corrupted the clear language of the US Constitution (starting, literally, before George Bush was even inaugurated). The “party of the military” that slandered a decorated war hero just to maintain their grip on power, the list goes on and on.

Which brings us to the salient difference with Democrats: Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, value principles such a truth and justice more than they value winning. They are also crappy followers.

Which is a natural short-term disadvantage against an unprincipled adversary (the very crux of the human struggle: civilization against the more savage) so dishonest, divisive Atwater/Rovian politics may actually have some utility in the general campaign against the Republican candidate, if more cynically-minded Democrats (still talking to you Billary) choose to use them against Republicans. Independents, the folks who’s political choice is to choose neither of the only two governing parties, seem particularly susceptible to those backward, transparent appeals to blind dislike and even hatred (Passive-Aggressive, anyone?). But they have no use and no place in a Democratic primary and will continue to drag your candidacy and most certainly your legacy into the mud.

So keep it above board until the general. It will give you both your best shot at winning the nomination of your party. And if you don’t, you can always turn the Big Dog loose on the Republicans on behalf of candidate Obama. Some liberals might even secretly cheer you on, against their better nature, for the good of mankind. It’s a sad day for civilization.

5 Comments

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

denouncing “activist judges”

Edward Westen reminds us that this phrase was pioneered by Rev. Pat Robertson's father who was a segregationist US Senator; he was referring to judges who ruled in favor of granting African Americans their full rights under the US Constitution.

But they have no use and no place in a Democratic primary and will continue to drag your candidacy and most certainly your legacy into the mud.

All due respect, that remains to be seen.

shep Author Profile Page said:

With all due respect, it's something we should hope for. Lest Democrats become ever more like Republicans.

And I'm starting to get the feeling that you kinda like dirt pool.

shep Author Profile Page said:

...dirty pool, that is.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

Don't believe that -- I just call it the way I see it.

You certainly would agree that history is written by the winners, right? And if Hillary wins the nomination, she (and her campaign) will be vindicated, at least temporarily. And if she wins the election, her methods will be repeated (by her) and emulated (by others) in future campaigns.

The only way dirty pool is repudiated is if those perpetrating it are defeated at the polls -- by others who play fair.

I prefer Obama because I believe in him and his message: that's it's time to turn the page -- time for change.

shep Author Profile Page said:

"You certainly would agree that history is written by the winners, right? And if Hillary wins the nomination, she (and her campaign) will be vindicated, at least temporarily. And if she wins the election, her methods will be repeated (by her) and emulated (by others) in future campaigns."

Basically, yes. And what Billary did to Obama is just a subtler form of the politics that Atwater, and later Rove, won with (they certainly take your lesson). But I would point out that history is long (Hitler and Stalin won for a while too) and the world is big. I would also ask about all of them: what did they really win? And more important even than that: what did they lose?

Leave a comment

Archives

Two ways to browse:

OR