March
4, 2006
Democrats Need to Offer Real Alternative to the GOP
By Anil Adyanthaya
British historian
Lord Acton once noted that power corrupts. But the absence of
power is not without its deleterious effects, either. To see this,
one needs only to look at the transformation of the Democratic
Party from when it controlled Congress and the White House during
the 1960s to its current state today.
A good starting point
to measure this change is Lyndon Johnson, one of only two Democratic
presidents to win reelection in the last fifty years. In the current
issue of the University of Virginia alumni magazine, there are
excerpts from transcripts of Johnson's conversations during the
early months of his presidency. (These transcripts can be found
in the book "The Presidential Recordings, Lyndon B. Johnson:
The Kennedy Assassination and the Transfer of Power, November
1963-January 1964", authored by historians at the University's
Miller Center of Public Affairs.)
One excerpt is particularly
noteworthy. It is Johnson's comments during a conversation with
Senate Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey:
"These
issues of smear and fear are not worthy of this republic and
of these days, and the Republicans want to spend a great deal
of time on that. So while they're digging there, we'll just
be building a better America. Hell, if they just come out here
and talked about the revival of the corn tassel or come out
for Tom Watson watermelons, it would be something, but they're
just by God, against things, against everything and trying to
smear and fear. And, that - you have no alternative. The St.
Louis Post-Dispatch man asked me today, said, 'What Republican
frightens you the most?' I said, "Well not any of them
now. When one of them comes out and said, 'This is what I stand
for' and gives me a foreign policy and said, 'Here's what I'm
for' and then he gives me a domestic policy and said, 'Here's
what I'm for. Here's what I'm for in the field of education,
in the field of manpower, in the field of training, in the field
of civil rights.' Then I'll get scared. Because even if it's
different from mine, they'll have a choice. But now they [the
voters] haven't any choice, because we're the only ones that
stand for anything. They're just against things. . . . And it
just makes these guys look silly."
How does today's Democratic
Party compare with the version Johnson describes, the one "building
a better America"? Do today's Democrats offer voters an alternative
or are they "just against things?" Unfortunately, it
appears that it is the latter.
The Democratic approach
to Iraq is perhaps the quintessential example of their current
political approach - a bitter stew of opposition and smear. Despite
constant claims that the war is a quagmire and a failure, Democrats
have failed to articulate any alternative strategy. Rather than
focus on winning the conflict, the Party chose to direct its energy
at attacking President Bush, labeling him a liar who tricked the
nation into war. As if that nonconstructive strategy was not symbolic
enough of their lack of any helpful ideas, the Party chose as
their 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, a man with no discernable
position on Iraq. Now, three years after the invasion, they still
have nothing to offer. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently
told the Washington Post that on Iraq, "There is no one Democratic
voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position."
The Democrats have
been no different on homeland security. The recent leak of the
National Security Agency's wiretapping of individuals with suspected
ties to al Qaeda sent much of them into an uproar. However, their
anger was not at the leak that alerted terrorists to our surveillance
efforts, but at Bush for allegedly violating the civil liberties
of American citizens. Prominent Democrats like Barbara Boxer openly
suggested that Bush deserves impeachment. This attempted claiming
of the constitutional high ground would carry more weight if the
Democrats had offered a competing strategy for protecting America
from another terrorist attack. Instead, the party seems content
just to obstruct any security initiative with a Republican imprimatur.
Witness, for example, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's boast
at a Democratic political rally that "we killed the Patriot
Act."
Another example of
this perpetual obstinacy is the recent Supreme Court confirmation
hearings for Samuel Alito. Desperate to derail the confirmation
of someone who is, by all accounts, a well-qualified jurist and
a good man, Ted Kennedy needlessly embarrassed himself by attempting
to paint Alito as a bigot. As result, Americans' most lasting
memory of this process was not the discussion of Alito's judicial
philosophy, but instead the sight of his wife leaving the hearing
in tears. The attempted filibuster only furthered the growing
perception of Democrats as a party of opposition instead of proposition.
On Meet the
Press, Party Chairman Howard Dean admitted that there is reality
behind that perception. "Right now it's not our job to give
out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control
in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this
corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage
to America."
In that one statement,
Dean perfectly encapsulated the state of today's Democratic Party.
That is, that they have become what Johnson so despised back in
1964, an organization "against everything and trying to smear
and fear." And that is a sad thing, not just for Democrats,
but for all Americans who believe the country is better served
by creative thinking and vigorous debate than by negativity and
obstruction.
Anil Adyanthaya is a lawyer
and writer who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.
