andicap
04-18-2005, 01:18 PM
I don't post to this board on political matters, largely because a) you don't change anyone's mind b) the discourse is not exactly civil and c) lack of time is a huge issue for me these days.
But I was reading the NY Times Book Review this week and for some reason after reading one review -- can't recall which one it was, but it involved Stalin -- it struck me why liberals rep has been in such a slide in the past 30-35 years. Just wondering if others agree with me; I will not debate here, just wanted to post an analytical thought.
George Bush won the election primarily because Americans trusted him to fight terrorism on U.S. soil more than John Kerry. Americans were angry over the Iraqi war -- that's why such an inadequate candidate like Kerry came so close to begin with.
To me that goes back to many -- but not all -- Liberals attitude about anti-Communism. How many people associate liberals with the Communist sympathizers who looked past the horrors Stalin inflicted on his people. I recall even in my very liberal family hearing some great liberal thinkers on domestic issues being denigrated as "cold warriors" or too "anti-Communist."
Not that my family thought Communism was a good idea. In fact, most liberals despised Communism. But they did not fight it vigerously enough in their rhetoric so people began associating libs as being "soft on Communism."
(Two valid problems the libs had in defending anti-Communism: The U.S. would support all sorts of Facist, evil, repressive regimes -- Pinochet in Chile being one -- in the name of fighting Communism. There were some Communist regimes elected that were NOT necessarily a threat to our security but the government did overreact in that area. Second, the over-reaching zealousness in which many anti-Communists fought Communism in the U.S. as soon through the policies of Joe McCarthy. Many innocent people were arrested, blacklisted, etc., with no proof of ever helping to overthrow the government.)
When the Soviets folded their tents in the '90s, it appeared that the "appeasement" viewpoint many libs favored had failed. Now people are linking this "soft on Communism" thinking to terrorism.
There are many reasons why this is not a valid comparison, but I do not want to engage in a debate over policy; just wondering aloud that if more liberals had come down harder on Communism in their rhetoric and did not defend obvious Communists -- I mean Democrats did escalate the Vietnam War and start the Korean War, the two conflicts associated with fighting Communism so they could hardly be called soft -- they may have encountered a more sympathic electorate on the terrorism issue.
For example, the Rosenbergs were almost certainly guilty of selling atomic secrets to the Russians. Yet they are liberal martyrs today. So is Alger Hiss, who was also guilty. (Problem was, many others accused were either innoncent or hadn't been Communists in 20 years.)
Staliin was a horrible, horrible man. Not as bad as Hitler of course, but certainly in his league. Many people over the years have perceived that liberals, in protecting Communists in the U.S. -- First Amendment and all of that -- were sympathetic to Stalin's beliefs. Or if not, just wouldn't be effective enough to fight them.
If you look at history, Dems won just 3 elections after the Cold War. JFK in '60 because of the debate, his charisma, and the poor campaign Nixon ran. As well as JFK's Cold War rhetoric -- the "missile gap." Johnson in '64 for obvious reasons.
And Carter, barely in '76 in the aftermath of Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. Carter's inadequate response to the Iranian hostage crisis only fueled many American's skepticism of the inability of liberals to respond to hostile threats abroad.
Dukasis' disastrous ride in the tank -- possibly the turning point in the '88 election -- was his misguided way of convincing voters that Democrats/liberals could be as vigerous in their response to our enemies as Republicans. That he looked so ridiculous just added to people's perception of liberals as weasly wimps.
When Clinton ran in '92 the Cold War was over and terrorism was not yet a major issue. With the country so focused on domestic issues, he was able to slide through.
This is why Hillary was so hawkish on Iraq. She knows the Dems can't be perceived as being "weak" in foreign affairs -- whatever that means.
For a clue on how 2008 election may go, keep an eye on polls that show how important terrorism and security are in relation to domestic issues like the economy.
All the other "issues" -- moral values and such -- are smokescreens. Those who thought moral values were the most important issue were likely GOP voters anyway. No one votes on the environment and everybody loves lower taxes.
That John Kerry could not parlay the millions of losses in jobs in the U.S., including swing state Ohio, to victory speaks of the incompetence of his campaign and the inarticulateness of him as a a candidate.
But I was reading the NY Times Book Review this week and for some reason after reading one review -- can't recall which one it was, but it involved Stalin -- it struck me why liberals rep has been in such a slide in the past 30-35 years. Just wondering if others agree with me; I will not debate here, just wanted to post an analytical thought.
George Bush won the election primarily because Americans trusted him to fight terrorism on U.S. soil more than John Kerry. Americans were angry over the Iraqi war -- that's why such an inadequate candidate like Kerry came so close to begin with.
To me that goes back to many -- but not all -- Liberals attitude about anti-Communism. How many people associate liberals with the Communist sympathizers who looked past the horrors Stalin inflicted on his people. I recall even in my very liberal family hearing some great liberal thinkers on domestic issues being denigrated as "cold warriors" or too "anti-Communist."
Not that my family thought Communism was a good idea. In fact, most liberals despised Communism. But they did not fight it vigerously enough in their rhetoric so people began associating libs as being "soft on Communism."
(Two valid problems the libs had in defending anti-Communism: The U.S. would support all sorts of Facist, evil, repressive regimes -- Pinochet in Chile being one -- in the name of fighting Communism. There were some Communist regimes elected that were NOT necessarily a threat to our security but the government did overreact in that area. Second, the over-reaching zealousness in which many anti-Communists fought Communism in the U.S. as soon through the policies of Joe McCarthy. Many innocent people were arrested, blacklisted, etc., with no proof of ever helping to overthrow the government.)
When the Soviets folded their tents in the '90s, it appeared that the "appeasement" viewpoint many libs favored had failed. Now people are linking this "soft on Communism" thinking to terrorism.
There are many reasons why this is not a valid comparison, but I do not want to engage in a debate over policy; just wondering aloud that if more liberals had come down harder on Communism in their rhetoric and did not defend obvious Communists -- I mean Democrats did escalate the Vietnam War and start the Korean War, the two conflicts associated with fighting Communism so they could hardly be called soft -- they may have encountered a more sympathic electorate on the terrorism issue.
For example, the Rosenbergs were almost certainly guilty of selling atomic secrets to the Russians. Yet they are liberal martyrs today. So is Alger Hiss, who was also guilty. (Problem was, many others accused were either innoncent or hadn't been Communists in 20 years.)
Staliin was a horrible, horrible man. Not as bad as Hitler of course, but certainly in his league. Many people over the years have perceived that liberals, in protecting Communists in the U.S. -- First Amendment and all of that -- were sympathetic to Stalin's beliefs. Or if not, just wouldn't be effective enough to fight them.
If you look at history, Dems won just 3 elections after the Cold War. JFK in '60 because of the debate, his charisma, and the poor campaign Nixon ran. As well as JFK's Cold War rhetoric -- the "missile gap." Johnson in '64 for obvious reasons.
And Carter, barely in '76 in the aftermath of Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. Carter's inadequate response to the Iranian hostage crisis only fueled many American's skepticism of the inability of liberals to respond to hostile threats abroad.
Dukasis' disastrous ride in the tank -- possibly the turning point in the '88 election -- was his misguided way of convincing voters that Democrats/liberals could be as vigerous in their response to our enemies as Republicans. That he looked so ridiculous just added to people's perception of liberals as weasly wimps.
When Clinton ran in '92 the Cold War was over and terrorism was not yet a major issue. With the country so focused on domestic issues, he was able to slide through.
This is why Hillary was so hawkish on Iraq. She knows the Dems can't be perceived as being "weak" in foreign affairs -- whatever that means.
For a clue on how 2008 election may go, keep an eye on polls that show how important terrorism and security are in relation to domestic issues like the economy.
All the other "issues" -- moral values and such -- are smokescreens. Those who thought moral values were the most important issue were likely GOP voters anyway. No one votes on the environment and everybody loves lower taxes.
That John Kerry could not parlay the millions of losses in jobs in the U.S., including swing state Ohio, to victory speaks of the incompetence of his campaign and the inarticulateness of him as a a candidate.