1.6.03 @ 12:04AM
Everything about the Democrats suggests they have nothing to offer but carping and squealing.
In the mid-Seventies William Rusher, then publisher of
National Review, coined the phrase "Yes-But Republicans"
to describe the party's delegation in Congress. By that he meant
that their refrain was, in relation to the Democrats' agenda, "Yes,
but a little less and a little more slowly." By then, the GOP had
been the minority in Congress for so long that few could remember
when it had last been in the majority.
Indeed, the Democrats were in control for so long that they, the
news media, academia and Washington lobbyists had all come to think
of this as the natural order of things; God-given (for those who
believed in God). Republicans, after all, lacked the moral
authority and intellectual capacity to lead -- or so it was
thought.
Even after the Republicans took control of the Senate for six
years in the Eighties, the general feeling one got from Democrats
around the capital city was that things would "get back to normal"
before long, and they did. That view was even sharper after the
Republican earthquake that upended the House in 1994. The first
evidence that the Democrats weren't going to take this affront
lying down came in the form of former committee chairmen and others
of the old guard complaining of "incivility" in Congress and a mood
of "partisanship" not seen before. Translation: It's no fun when
you aren't running things. Their idea of bipartisanship, of course,
was a permanent and pliant Republican minority.
Now, more than eight years later, the Republicans still control
the House, now by 25 votes. In November they regained control of
the Senate, kept a majority of the governorships and now control
both legislative chambers in more states than do the Democrats.
During the campaign and since then, Democrat candidates and
office holders have seemed unable to deal in anything but
negatives. It has been years since their party brought forth a Big
Idea (was Medicare the last one?). In the recent election none of
their candidates brought forth any proposals with which to counter
the Bush agenda. They were wholly reactive. They tried to scare
seniors over Social Security, to no avail. Some tried to get to
Bush's right over homeland security, i.e., that he wasn't "doing
enough." They seemed intent on proving that you can't beat
something with nothing, and most voters agreed.
Now, with the 108th Congress about to convene, the signs are
everywhere that the Democrats are continuing their slide into
minority-party status, for their rhetoric is wholly negative:
• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi trots out hoary class
warfare rhetoric. She complains that eliminating double taxation of
dividends will benefit "the rich" when tax relief should benefit
the middle class. She seems unaware that most everyone in the
middle class owns stocks, bonds and other investments these days
and would welcome a little relief from taxation of their nest eggs.
But, what the heck, if class warfare worked in FDR's time, it
oughta work now, right?
• Speaking with one voice, as if scripted, various
Democrat leaders have been complaining -- with straight faces --
that Republicans/conservatives really do control the news media in
the U.S. The New York Times, a volunteer house organ for
the Democrats, in a recent article gave front page space to the
lamentations of party operatives that they lacked popular
messengers such as Rush Limbaugh and talk radio shows. Fox News
Channel, which sedulously balances its panel shows, is envied
because its audience grew by 36 percent last year, while CNN and
MSNBC lost viewers. One Democrat complained that his party had the
"right" message but lacked the "right" messenger. Mario Cuomo tried
a talk show. It was about as popular as a lecture on the benefits
of cod liver oil.
• The growing field of would-be presidents among the
Democrats has yet to produce a single idea -- and John Edwards's
desire to represent "regular" people doesn't count as an idea.
Neither do Dick Gephardt's and John Kerry's sonorous declarations
about Bush's policies being "wrong."
Both Congressional Democrats and presidential aspirants are
frozen in a posture of crabbing about Republican initiatives at
either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, without offering anything of
substance themselves. They are beginning to look like the mirror
image of those "Yes-But" Republicans of the Seventies, tired and
resigned to minority status. Often the Democrat "yes, but" is "Yes,
but a little more and, yes, but a little faster," since they like
an ever-growing government, but it is still "yes, but."
topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Social Security, Iran, Oil, Medicare
