“People want us to fight, and we are here to fight,” Howard Dean told party leaders over the weekend. “We are not going to lie down in front of the Republican machine anymore.” Then he laid out the big strategic picture: “We have not spoken about moral values in this party for a long time. The truth is, we’re Democrats because of our moral values.”
Hallelujah. The opposition plans to oppose. That’s the upside. But then there’s the downside, which is twofold. First, it seems we’re doomed to suffer the overkilled “moral values” mantra from Democrats as well as Republicans -- and for at least three, agonizing years, since the scheme of liberalism-cum-moralism focuses on regaining the White House.
The second downside is also twofold and almost too obvious to point out. Dean rightly chooses not to “lie down” any longer, yet what he proposes as a substitute is merely a tortured form of me-tooism. I doubt many will see that as bold and innovative leadership on the big and pressing issues. Furthermore, Republicans learned the hard way that contentious “moral values” can be a double-edged shibboleth, so me-too-with-a-twist Democrats would seem an unwise, if not dangerous, duplication.
Nevertheless the greater and surest danger in charging ahead with a patent-labeled moral-values framework lies in its re-fighting the last election rather than looking forward, and rather than framing the party’s own agenda.
I give you, principally, Iraq. In this the Republicans were reckless and grossly incompetent, are still reckless and grossly incompetent, and since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, will surely continue being reckless and grossly incompetent. They managed bipartisan support for this developing tragedy only by lying their way into the debacle. Now that debacle has us so strapped militarily that should a genuine global crisis come along, we’re toast. That’s the much-vaunted “national security” party for you -- a message that should be pounded every day and twice on Sundays.
Which politically ties in nicely with the greatest looming issue possessing the greatest potential: the memo scandals. So many in the blogosphere have rightly noted the inattention given to these revelations by the mainstream media, yet here we have the Democratic Party reinforcing the inattention by favoring yesterday’s moral-values gig.
The latest British memo in a now-cascading ream of devastating memos notes that well before invasion the U.S. “was not preparing adequately for … a ‘protracted and costly’ postwar occupation” -- that military plans were anxiously being laid while the same planners were giving “little thought” to the war’s “aftermath and how to shape it.” More incompetence to the power of ten.
And I remind you of the president’s recently stated defense against the original Downing Street Memo. Bush said he had read only “characterizations of the memo” -- not the whole, what, three-page memo? -- and snidely noted its public timing was aimed at harming Blair’s reelection. He then, without denying the memo’s authenticity, portrayed its contents as irrelevant.
But here’s the politically damaging reality of the president’s defense, a reality so far left unbloodied by Democrats. One, Bush said he read “characterizations of the memo” to indicate dismissiveness. Two, he then unwittingly confessed to the memo’s truthful essence by pointing out the harmful intent of its release. And three, he then contradicted that contradiction by contradicting his very own ally’s first-hand understanding of U.S. policy. Ponder for a moment what a talented Republican comedy writer could do to a Democrat with material like that.
As a general rule in politics, and especially in the politics of Iraq, whatever Bush bungles reflects on his party. His bungling is their bungling. Yet the Dems give both a pass by not defining it as a team effort and then compound the negligence by trailing off onto questionable exit-polling data from a past election and changing electorate.
All of which brings us back to the original point. Why peer into the moral-values nebulae when so much hard reality is crashing down on us?
It's about time someone dishes this shit right back in the land of wingnuttia. They have monopolized the dialogue on "morals" whilst demonstrating they only things they care about are money and power -- two things that were offered to their allegedly precious "lord and savior" Jesus, but which Jesus refused, recognizing how inherently soul-corrupting wealth and power really are.
Posted by: Marblex | June 14, 2005 at 09:52 AM
I guess I fail to see the distinction between stressing moral values and stressing the deceit revealed in the Downing Street Memo.
Isn't it a moral value not to go to war under false pretenses and not to lie to the public, especially about matters of war and peace and life and death.
I see a nice continuum here. What am I missing?
Posted by: Oleary | June 14, 2005 at 10:56 AM
Exactly. They are so assailable on so many levels it must become clear to the sheeple that they ONLY way they could have gained office with this agenda is by cheating.
Nothing positive will come of any of this if these pricks can ignore the polls and Diebold their way to office in the next elections.
Posted by: Marblex | June 14, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Both parties work for the weapons industry. Israeli criminal representatives sell their constituents on "making a market", provocation and false intelligence provided by a US DOD and state department overweighted with Jewish perspectives - Come on - US population is 2% Jewish. Why was Clinton's white house 55% non goy and Duby's over 35% non-goy - what ever happend to affirmative action.
Us political representatives, relying on the provocations delivered by Israel then plunder our treasurey for no bid - no tax give aways to the killing machine oligarchs.
Get Israel (and the current second string politicos) out of our government and we will get our "house" back.
Peace
Posted by: Cadavre | June 14, 2005 at 12:34 PM
As stated above, truth is a moral value--as in not lying about why we're in Iraq. Improving the economy and narrowing the gap between rich and poor is a moral value. Responsible emvironmental stewardship is a moral value.
Working for peace, justice, tolerance, and acceptance are all moral values, and all have been sorely neglected by the party in power.
Democracy is a moral value. Our first, foremost, and top proirity as a party and as citizens should be to restore openness and integrity to the voting system. Computerized voting machines which are vulnerable to hacking and power outages should be replaced by paper ballots to be hand counted IN PUBLIC, not in the secrecy of cyberspace. Electoral officials should be banned from actively campaigning for candidates, let alone serving as campaign co-chairpersons. Election day should be made a holiday. Instead of November second, we should vote on the 11th--Veterans' Day.
National standards must be established and enforced to prevent local irregularities from deciding the election for the whole nation, and it should be a felony to intimidate, harass, or interfere with vote counters in the performance of their duty.
Finally, we must abolish the obsolete and antiquated electoral college system, or at least amend it by ending the winner take all rule and allowing the results to more accurately reflect the true will of all voters.
Making every vote count, is, in a democracy, perhaps the most important moral value of all.
Posted by: Drew fromCT | June 14, 2005 at 01:08 PM
I would rather have a sister who worked in a whore house, than a brother who was a registered republican. Tom
Posted by: thomas j. leddy | June 14, 2005 at 03:05 PM