Once liberal Democrats lose power they suddenly value
moderation. The dangers of ideological politics now worry them
terribly. The same liberals who told Bill Clinton to barrel toward
universal health care and homosexuals in the military are telling
George Bush to govern “from the center.” Liberal partisans who
appeared ready to bring confetti and balloons to Paul Wellstone’s
memorial are newfound champions of bipartisanship.
Radical liberal Bill Moyers is nostalgic for the days of Dwight
Eisenhower, because he was “moderate in the use of power.”
Republicans under him were for the most part a “reasonable lot,”
writes Moyers. But not anymore: “That brand of Republican is gone.
And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire
federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary —
is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush
believes he now has a mandate.” Moyers is frightened at the
prospect of lower taxes, pro-life laws, and more respect from the
government for religion. Never mind that these were the very
policies in place at the time of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency.
Moyers usually warns the Republicans not to go back to the 1950s.
But the election has left him so turned around he’s developed a
respect for it.
Even as liberals lose power, they continue to present themselves
as authorities on its proper exercise. Sure, the people took power
away from them, but liberals still know exactly what the people
want. And surely it can’t be George W. Bush conservatism? No, no,
the nation is as open to the liberal agenda as ever. Bush’s
political success was purely “tactical.” As Washington
Post columnist Richard Cohen put it, “the GOP won with money
and tactics — a great get-out-the-vote effort and, yes, the lift
provided by Bush’s personal popularity. The victory, though, was no
knockout — just a match won on points.” Democrats can stay the
course, says Cohen, because the elections’ “results do not mean
that suddenly the country wants right-wing judges, privatized
Social Security, government support of organized religion or, for
that matter, a foreign policy with a chip on its shoulder just
spoiling for a fight.”
Liberals don’t see election results as ideological mandates
unless they win. If liberals win, the people have made a profound
statement about their views and values; if conservatives win, the
people were just snookered by a Republican-rigged system or a
personally charming Republican president. It is nice to see the
Republican victory bringing out Gore Vidal’s Marxist paranoia: “The
same people own the media that own the White House that own the
Congress that own the oil fields. They all work together to give a
false view of the world to the American people.”
Moyers is equally delusional: “Don’t forget the money. It came
pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America
and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised
[D]emocrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize
— monopoly control of the American government, and the power of
the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a
bargain at any price”
Republicans should never be ideological, of course. That is a
privilege reserved only for liberals. While they demand
“moderation” from the Republicans, they demand less moderation from
their own leaders. Why didn’t you guys run as real leftists? is the
universal lament
“The Republican Party’s historical hostility to the rights of
women and the welfare of immigrants, its favoritism toward big
business and big contributors, Richard Nixon’s unwavering
willingness to trade integrity for victory and Ronald Reagan’s
cheerful indifference to the disenfranchised: all conspire to leave
liberals nowhere to go,” writes Anna Quindlen. “So the Democrats
took us for granted, too. They did it by refusing to take clear,
strong, unapologetic positions on issues, to spell out how they
were different from the other guys on the economy and national
defense.”
But help is on the way for Quindlen, Moyers and company. Their
party has found just the right leader to lecture George Bush on
moderation and balanced government — a San Francisco liberal named
Nancy Pelosi who wanted Gary Condit re-elected.
