The tacit message of Democrats to grieving military families is:
your children died in vain. But the mother of the fallen Marine
whom George Bush remembered in his State of the Union address
rebutted the Democrats’ critique of the war with her presence. Her
embrace of a liberated Iraqi was the most significant moment of the
evening. She was crying not out of bitterness but pride for a son
who served in an honorable cause that did not end in vain. He died
protecting his country against an avowed enemy of it, a barbarian
who never stopped fighting the first Gulf War. The Marine helped
overthrow a regime that indisputably had ties to Al Qaeda. And he
performed the most basic act of civilization, protecting the weak
against the wicked. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqis lost their
fingers. Now they raise their fingers after voting against his
dwindling followers.
Had John F. Kennedy accomplished such an epoch-changing shift in
Iraq, the Democrats would have nominated him for the Nobel Peace
Prize. Instead, they castigate Bush for turning into reality the
Kennedyesque rhetoric of liberty they once lauded.
Who do the Democrats trot out to speak about America’s
“security” and fighting the terrorists? A San Francisco pacifist,
Nancy Pelosi. And who speaks for them about reforming Social
Security for younger Americans? A graying Senator who already
qualifies for it.
Reid spoke of deficits as “immoral” even as he made it clear
that his party wouldn’t lift a finger to lower them. Will they
support eliminating government programs? No. Will Reid and Pelosi
stop bringing pork back to their trough-supping donors? No. There
was a hint of sarcasm in Bush’s comment about the “bipartisan
enthusiasm” for spending reductions. No such enthusiasm exists.
Save for a few supply-siders here and there, both parties are
chock-a-block full of pols addicted to federal monies that are
utterly inessential. Recall that when the federal government shut
down in the 1990s, few Americans even noticed. Federal workers in
“inessential” offices were sent home, which meant most federal
workers.
If the Democrats and Republicans were serious about eliminating
the deficit, they could start with the 150 programs Bush said in
his speech that he will place on the blocks, and just keep going.
But instead they will go through the usual phony hysterics over
even the mildest cuts in the most useless departments.
Even as the Democrats speak of their affection for “the world”
and forming international alliances, they sound louder and louder
isolationist notes on the global economy. Harry Reid wants George
Bush to work side by side with foreigners at the U.N., yet is upset
that Americans and foreigners are working side by side in
companies. Why should that automatically offend these
internationalists?
It is hard to discern any principle in the Democratic program
save a reflexive opposition to whatever Bush proposes, even if what
he proposes is almost identical to what their Democratic forbears
were proposing a few years ago. The Democrats’ call almost every
problem a crisis, until the moment Bush uses that word. Then they
turn semantically cautious. This is what will happen with deficits,
a problem they now call a crisis but will cease calling a crisis
the next time they return to power and get a chance to jack them
up.
Harry Reid referred to the movie Groundhog Day in his
rebuttal, as if that were some sort of embarrassing parallel to the
Bush administration. Did he see the movie? Life got better, not
worse, during the course of it. It is about a character who learns
from his mistakes, a tale the Democrats might find instructive. As
it stands, they increasingly adhere to the famous definition of
insanity, committing the same blunders over and over and expecting
a different outcome.
