The stresses and strains of post-defeat spinning.
“Victory has a thousand fathers,” said John F. Kennedy, “but defeat is an orphan.”
David Axelrod, netting the prize for the most shameless display of post-defeat spinning, added an additional father to Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia: Barack Obama.
McDonnell ran “not as a Sarah Palin Republican, but more as a Barack Obama centrist,” said Axelrod, according to liberal columnist E.J. Dionne.
Axelrod’s fanciful description of Obama as a “centrist” betrays what he denies: that hundreds of thousands of voters in major states once thought permanently blue did recoil from a year of radical, Obama-led change, both real and proposed.
Democrats console themselves with the spin that “local issues” drove the losses, as if a repudiation of local liberalism is less ominous than a repudiation of national liberalism. The “local issues” were liberal issues, questions of excessive taxation. Jon Corzine raised property taxes; Creigh Deeds proposed to raise transportation ones.
Had Corzine and Deeds won, Obama’s participation in their campaigns would have been cast as decisive. Since they lost, it is irrelevant. All is well, say White House aides, even as they secretly shake in their boots.
After Democrats lost in 1994, a stung Bill Clinton didn’t even bother to spin it; he just hired Dick Morris. But Democrats this year, at least publicly, are in denial mode, taking solace in a Democrat replacing a Democrat in California and a jumbled squeaker in New York. Nancy Pelosi summoned the energy for her trademark brittle smile and said Democrats “won” on Tuesday.
The media-driven expectation, after Republicans lose, is that the party will move not just to the middle but to the left. When Democrats lose, they aren’t even expected to move to the middle. No, they can keep up their prattle about the “civil war” in the Republican Party and the value of a “Big Tent” even as they dismantle the last remaining stakes of their own.
When has the Democratic Party establishment in recent years ever run the equivalent of a Dede Scozzafava? It is unimaginable. They can hardly abide moderate Democrats, let alone the Zell Millers. Pro-life Democrats can’t speak at their conventions, and while they claim to “reach out to independents,” mistreat the ones closest to them, as Joe Lieberman now knows well. Big Tent advocates of the left, heal thyselves.
But Tuesday’s results won’t make the Democrats any less ‘doctrinaire. A liberal defeat, as they see it, is a call not for less liberalism but a more vigorously stated one: Deeds failed to embrace Obama’s policies more tightly and espouse them more eloquently, they complain, for example.
The only party that Democrats seek to reform after a defeat is the Republican Party: How can we mau-mau the other side into running the most feeble candidates, de facto Democrats with an R after their names who will collaborate with our agenda rather than resist it?
Were the “purge of moderates” as “politically disastrous” for the Republican Party as Axelrod claims, he would stop acting like Olympia Snowe’s press secretary and encourage it. He should want Republicans to lose. But he knows that they won’t; conservative Republicans will win over the next few years and foul up Obama’s agenda.
Don’t listen to “Fox News,” Axelrod tells the media establishment; don’t listen to conservatives, he tells the Republican one. Why? Well, because Obama just shouldn’t have opponents apparently.
Democracy is proving inconvenient to “hope” and “change.” America stubbornly refuses to become the liberal utopia of Obama’s dreams; even progressive Maine couldn’t bring itself to endorse gay marriage. The Democrats’ claimed expertise on appealing to independents and moderates looks fairly hollow at the moment.
Were independents wedded to Democratic policies, their shift from Obama last year to Christie and McDonnell this one would be inexplicable. The much-touted youth vote also looks less ideologically significant one year later. According to pollster Charlie Cook, college students didn’t trouble themselves to vote for Deeds and Corzine because they have a strictly “personal relationship” with Obama. Unless he is running, they don’t care.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?