In a way, I’ve been avoiding posting anything since the elections, partly because they seemed like such a disaster (everything and everyone I voted for lost; everything and everyone I voted against won), and partly because there seemed to be little that wasn’t being said already. Also, it seemed hypocritical to bemoan the democrats poor showing when I made a point of voting against Jim McDermott (the first and probably the last time I’ll vote for a Libertarian).

What I find most interesting is that only now, though there were some signs of this before the election, are a fairly large number of liberals coming out for the overthrow, by whatever means necessary, of Saddam Hussein. Maybe it’s just all the anti-Nazi, anti-Communist, anti-corporate rhetoric I was fed in school, but I always thought that the overthrow of totalitarian dictatorships was a “liberal” principal. I still think it is, and I think the anti-war movement—if such a thing can truly be said to exist—isn’t liberal, but essentially isolationist. It’s the international equivalent of “nimbyism,” the not in my backyard mentality that has brought us here in Washington state such wonderful political figures as Tim “Why should I pay for social services when I’m anti-social myself?” Eyeman. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of tying the anti-war protesters with Eyeman; they both believe in exactly the same thing: a responsibility-free lunch, preferably at somebody else’s expense.

I would like to know, though, where these liberal believers in Saddam’s overthrow were before the elections (excepting Christopher Hitchens, of course)? Were they waiting until after the elections, when they thought it would be safe (shame on them if they were)? Or are they just slow? And why aren’t any of them actually in the Democratic party? If the Democrats aren’t going to openly support Saddam’s overthrow, and if they can’t do anything to stop it (and they can’t), then they had best hope that it happens quickly and without a lot of fuss, because only when the smoke clears will they stand a chance of defeating Bush in 2004. The best thing the Democrats can do is throw themselves wholeheartedly behind the topple Saddam movement, get it over with, and then start picking at Bush for the way things were run, or about the level of support we provide to Iraq after it’s over. And then focus on the economy and corporate malfeasance like a laser. That way they can be on the side of right, and of most of the voters, and still present themselves as the opposition. Unfortunately, with Pelosi and Daschle in charge, I don’t think that’s going to happen.