In a way, Iíve 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 wasnít 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 Iíll 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 itís 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 ďliberalĒ principal. I still think it is, and I think the anti-war movementóif such a thing can truly be said to existóisnít liberal, but essentially isolationist. Itís the international equivalent of ďnimbyism,Ē the not in my backyard mentality that has brought us here in Washington state such wonderful political figures as Tim ďWhy should I pay for social services when Iím anti-social myself?Ē 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 elseís expense.

I would like to know, though, where these liberal believers in Saddamís 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 arenít any of them actually in the Democratic party? If the Democrats arenít going to openly support Saddamís overthrow, and if they canít do anything to stop it (and they canít), 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 itís 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 donít think thatís going to happen.

Replies: 4 comments



Search entries:

Powered By Greymatter



Weblog Commenting and Trackback by