Friday, September 03, 2004

DAILY EXPRESS Zellotry by Jonathan Cohn Only at TNR Online Post date: 09.02.04 "As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, 'When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.'" --Joseph McCarthy, speech to Ohio County Women's Republican Club, February 9, 1950 "Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief." --Zell Miller, speech to Republican National Convention, September 1, 2004 critic could credibly describe Senator Zell Miller's speech to the Republican Convention as angry, misleading, or both. But to dwell on either the tone or veracity of Miller's text somehow misses the point given the scene that unfolded at Madison Square Garden last night. In an address originally billed as a critique of John Kerry's national security credentials, Miller essentially branded the Democrats as traitors because they haven't fallen in line with President Bush on all matters of national security. It was one of the most vile political speeches in recent American history, every bit as offensive as Pat Buchanan's infamous call in 1992 for "religious war" and, perhaps, a little more disturbing. Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy. For several days now, Republicans have hammered away at John Kerry's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, arguing that he's too indecisive, too dishonest, or simply too wimpy to keep the country safe from terrorists. And make no mistake: That's a perfectly legitimate claim to make in a presidential campaign, whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, arguing over which presidential candidate would do a better job of protecting America is precisely the argument America should be having this year. But Miller went well beyond questioning Kerry's leadership ability or philosophy. Miller questioned his motives. Citing the story of Republican Wendell Wilkie, who in 1940 embraced Franklin Roosevelt's call for a peacetime draft because "he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue," Miller asked why Democrats had failed to show their president similar deference. "Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?" Then Miller quickly supplied an answer: "Today's Democratic leaders," he said, are "motivated more by partisan politics than by national security." Never mind all the inconvenient facts that get in the way of that narrative, like the fact that Democrats actually showed Bush enormous deference after 9/11, bestowing bipartisan support upon both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. (Remember, it was precisely Democrats' acquiescence to the Iraq war that fueled Howard Dean's insurgency.) And never mind that, on those occasions when Democrats did fight the president, it was precisely because Democrats believed their approach (spending more on homeland defense, using ground troops in Tora Bora, building a stronger international coalition, etc.) would actually make America safer. Never mind all of that because the point of Miller's speech wasn't to answer specific questions about President Bush's foreign policy (perhaps because those questions are increasingly difficult for Miller and the president's defenders to answer). It was to declare such questions beyond the boundaries of respectable debate. It was to brand dissent--whether by politicians, commentators, or activists--an act of anti-Americanism, and to do so with as much blood-drenched imagery as possible: ...it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. No one should dare to even think about being the commander-in-chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. Are there people on the left of American politics who think America is the problem? Sure. Are some even hostile to American troops? A few, maybe. But to level such accusations at Kerry, who volunteered for frontline service in Vietnam and won medals for his heroic performance there, seems absurd on its face. (It's even more absurd in the case of such prominent Democrats as Max Cleland, Daniel Inouye, Bob Kerrey, and Charlie Rangel, who suffered serious wounds in battle.) Alas, it's probably no more absurd than making the ultimate accusation of treason against Kerry, that he'd hand the reigns of American power over to a foreign country: "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. ... This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?" Of course, Kerry made it quite clear at the Democratic Convention that "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." But, really, what's the point in even arguing about what Kerry said? Miller obviously could care less about actual facts. His intention was to paint all of Bush's critics with one broad, dark paint brush--to declare any attack on the president or his policies, whatever the source, an attack on America itself. Thus the signature line: "Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief." Note the curious phrasing, "bring down our commander-in-chief." In the United States we don't "bring down" our leaders. We vote them out of office. And before we do that, we ask them hard questions about the way they conduct their business. Miller may not agree; judging from the zesty reaction he received from the delegates last night, neither may most officials in the Republican Party. But they would all do well to remember the wisdom one of their own heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, expressed a century ago: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."   Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at TNR and a Kaiser Family Foundation media fellow. 10:57:15 PM

Conservative liberals and the radical restorationists. Conservatism has a bad rap around these parts. It's a... [Daily Kos] 11:43:42 AM

Taking advantage of those who died on 9/11. Boy, Gov. George Pataki and President Bush sure talked a lot about 9/11 Thursday night. I mean, a lot. A disturbing lot. At some point, for me -- and I think it was when Pataki was still talking -- the whole parading of the Twin Towers attack stopped being about "Look how America rose to the occasion" and started being a kind of porn. [Salon.com] 11:33:51 AM

Bill Clinton to have heart surgery. Former US President Bill Clinton is sent to hospital for a heart bypass operation after suffering chest pains. [BBC News | News Front Page | UK Edition] 11:32:03 AM

Republicans send New York Times spinning. Sometimes the best way to put today’s political press coverage in perspective is to contrast it with how identical events were covered in the very near past. Take the New York Times’ coverage of the Republican and Democratic conventions. The morning after the Democratic convention concluded, the Times published two, page-one stories; a straight a news piece about Sen. John Kerry’s address, and a separate analysis of the themes of the speech. Today, following the Republican convention, the Times does the same; a news piece on president Bush address, as well as an analysis. But for the Republicans, there’s a bonus dispatch, a valentine-of-a-report (“Buoyed G.O.P. Says It Has Framed Agenda for Fall”) on how “confident” and “optimistic” Republican strategists were celebrating their convention, convinced they had “framed the debate for the fall” and “had succeeded in raising significant doubts” about their opponent. [Salon.com] 11:30:54 AM

Paul Krugman - Feel the Hate (NYT) don't know where George Soros gets his money," one man said. "I don't know where - if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." George Soros, another declared, "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin." After all, a third said, Mr. Soros "is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust." They aren't LaRouchies - they're Republicans. The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it. The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ. For many months we've been warned by tut-tutting commentators about the evils of irrational "Bush hatred." Pundits eagerly scanned the Democratic convention for the disease; some invented examples when they failed to find it. Then they waited eagerly for outrageous behavior by demonstrators in New York, only to be disappointed again. There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden. Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval. Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry). The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named. Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have. That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Mr. Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Mr. Soros. It's also why Mr. Hastert, who knows how little the Bush administration has done to protect New York and help it rebuild, has accused the city of an "unseemly scramble" for cash after 9/11. Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right. But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity. The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist. Early rumors were that the invocation would be given by Jerry Falwell, who suggested just after 9/11 that the attack was God's punishment for the activities of the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way, among others. But Ms. Dew is no more moderate: earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler. The party made sure to put social moderates like Rudy Giuliani in front of the cameras. But in private events, the story was different. For example, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas told Republicans that we are in a "culture war" and urged a reduction in the separation of church and state. Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.

11:27:00 AM