March 4, 2006
Democrats Need to Offer Real Alternative to the GOP
By Anil AdyanthayaBritish 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.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_4_06_AA.html