To Fight or not to Fight

One of the comments made often during the presidency of Bill Clinton was that he is a lover, not a fighter. This characteristic was both applauded and demonized. Democrats applauded Clinton for being able to feel the economic and emotional pain of ordinary people. This sensitivity was deemed a valuable trait after the insensitivity of the Reagan-Bush years. So, even when Clinton took this sensitivity a bit too far by having an affair with a White House intern, Democrats and other citizens forgave him, arguing that everyone lies about sex, and sex is not something that is worth impeaching a president. Republicans criticized this sensitivity because Clinton was very weak on foreign policy. Republicans accused Clinton of failing to recognize the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. They accused him of failing to recognize the rising threat of China. Instead, Clinton cooperated economically with China. Clinton was the head of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, which sought to lower trade barriers, engage economically with foreign countries, and lower taxes for the middle class while raising taxes on the rich. Democrats accused Clinton of selling out the working class, but they were willing to live with these policies. Al Gore promised to working on behalf of the poor and the working class, and thus the country, including labor, voted for Gore over Bush.

However, Bush stole the election from Gore by rigging the military absentee ballots, and getting the Supreme Court to stop the counting of votes. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party was fooled by Bush, thinking he would promote the same centrist policies that Clinton had supported. Instead, Bush turned out to be a fighter, not a lover. Bush ridiculed everything the Democrats wanted, refusing to even hear their perspective. Then, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, Bush turned a single day into the raison d'etre for the country: the U.S. finds its identity in fighting radical Islam. Initially, the Democrats went along with this new national identity, until they discovered they were being replaced by Republicans in the 2002 midterm elections.

Hence, Democrats, as David Brooks notes, have ceased being the party of lovers of free trade, compromise and negotiation. Instead, Democrats want to fight the Republicans. Brooks attributes this new belligerence to the old age of the neoliberals, but in reality it is due to the mendacity that led to the Iraq War. Frank Rich notes that the reason Democrats, and the rest of the country, are so angry is because the Republicans are great at stage craft and public relations, but terrible at governance. The Libby trial revealed just how much lying has taken place at the Behest of the Bush Administration. As a result, Rich argues that it is inevitable that Libby will be pardoned. Libby knows too much damaging information for Bush not to pardon him.

Yet, the biggest lesson out of the Bush White House is that a fraudulent president can do anything when not seriously challenged by the opposition party or members of the same party. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Democrats were afraid to challenge Bush. Now, not only are Democrats challenging Bush, the Old Left wing is challenging the neoliberal wing for being a wimp in the face of Bush's lies.

In other words, Bush has paved the way for the fighting Democrats, last seen in the guise of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.