ELECTION 2004  
comments_image -

Fighting Dirty

In war, one tries to demoralize and destroy the enemy, seize territory and gain unconditional surrender. Must liberals approach politics as war in order to win?
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Election 2004 headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

The recent election spawned a thousand postmortems. Most attributed the Democratic loss to an incoherent message and a refusal to relate to America's deeply felt religious longings. The Democratic Party is probably guilty on both counts. But that is not why liberals – in the traditional sense of the term – lose elections. They lose because they approach politics differently from conservatives, at least conservatives circa 2004.

Conservatives view politics as war. In war, one tries to demoralize and destroy the enemy, seize his territory and gain unconditional surrender. And as Alberto Gonzales, our next Attorney General, has argued in an international context, in war there are no rules.

Liberals engage in politics as a contact sport. In politics, like football, people get injured. But even violent sports have rules. Rule-breakers receive penalties, including being thrown out of the game. And in sports, when the game ends, people shake hands, and differences are set aside.

This difference in approach results in a telling and visible difference in tactics and strategy. At the Democratic convention, word went out that it was to be a positive affair, pro-Kerry, not anti-Bush. The Republican Convention, on the other hand, accentuated the negative. It was a savage affair. Contrast the content and style of the keynote address of Barack Obama at the Democratic convention with that of Zell Miller at the Republican convention. When Reverend Al Sharpton went off-script in a speech that energized everyone at the Convention, Democratic leaders and commentators quickly distanced themselves from his comments.

Kerry was extremely reluctant to focus on George W. Bush's absence in the National Guard. Republicans, on the other hand, gave tens of millions of dollars to fund a 7-month no-holds-barred vicious effort by Swift Boat veterans accusing Kerry of being a traitor who prolonged the war and shot himself to gain a Purple Heart. The Democratic Party's response? No fair.

In the days following the 2002 election, House Majority Leader Tom Delay and other Republican leaders sent thugs into Florida's election offices to physically stop the manual recount. The morning after the 2004 election, with clear evidence of thousands of instances of voter fraud and malfeasance coming in across the country and specifically, in closely contested Ohio, John Kerry conceded.

Conservatives understand the nature of power and they are willing, even eager, to exercise it. When Ronald Reagan assumed office, Republicans adopted a conservative litmus test for those coming into civil service. They reassigned or forced out civil servants who did not accept the party's new ideology. James Watt, Secretary of the Interior, put contractors on notice that they'd better be Republicans.

Before the 1984 election I asked several leading Democratic Party officials whether they would engage in the same tactics if they regained control of the Executive Branch. I argued that if they did not, they would be saddled with an obstructionist bureaucracy hostile to their objectives. They were horrified at my suggestion. "What they did was wrong," they insisted.

When Republicans gained control of the House in the mid-1990s they made it clear that any trade association with a lobbyist with Democratic credentials would have a difficult time gaining access. In this election, for the first time in U.S. history, the Republican Party declared that no one could see the president speak unless they supported his re-election. They spread the word that those who volunteered to work for his re-election would be given a priority.

In 1989, Newt Gingrich filed charges against Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright. Gingrich argued that Wright had used bulk purchases of a vanity book, "Reflections of a Public Man," to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum. At the time the Democratic Party held as large a majority in the House as the Republican Party does now. But Democrats did not defend Wright. After all, they sheepishly maintained, he did engage in unethical conduct. In May, Wright resigned as Speaker. In June he resigned his office.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Election 2004 headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Running Out of Oxygen? Gingrich Loses Crucial Campaign Donor

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly Political Animal

 
 
FBI File Chronicled Steve Jobs' LSD Use

By Hunter R. Slaton | The Fix

 
 
Will Millennials Back Obama in 2012?

By Bill Moyers | BillMoyers.com

 
 
Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Bachus is Investigated for Insider Trading

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
White House Announces Birth Control "Accommodations" for Religious Groups: Insurance Companies Will Pay, So Women Will Still be Covered

By Jodi Jacobson | RH Reality Check

 
 
Is the Catholic Church Just a Super PAC in Robes?

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Amid General Strike, 7,000 Protest Austerity in Greece, And Violence Erupts Between Demonstrators and Police

By AFP

 
 
Must-See Video: WA Republican Debates Gay Marriage with Profound, Personal Speech for Equality

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
"Emotions": Santorum's Sexist Explanation for Why Women Shouldn't be on the Front Lines

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Taibbi: Mortgage Fraud Settlement is More Like a Bailout Than Justice

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]