America’s
Pathetic Liberals
by John Chuckman
Dissident Voice
December 20,
2002
You might think
from the way the progressive press laments Al Gore's decision not to run again
for President that there had been a genuine loss to liberalism in America.
But that's not
quite the way I see it. Although few candidates ever came better groomed for
high office than Mr. Gore, it is his performance in the 2000 presidential
election that must be lamented.
Yes, he won the
popular vote - teaching a new generation of Americans that being elected is no
guarantee of winning under the arcane and anti-democratic provisions of
America's 18th century Constitution. But with an opponent like George Bush, Mr.
Gore should have won that vote by a large enough margin to make the entire
business of Florida and the Supreme Court irrelevant. He should have, as they
used to say, "mopped the floor with" an opponent as inarticulate,
unimaginative, and with such a questionable background as Mr. Bush. But he
didn't.
I remember, once
or twice, hearing some tough words from Mr. Gore and thinking perhaps he had
found his voice, only to be quickly disillusioned over the next day or two.
Well, what could you expect from someone who chose to open his campaign by
speaking about family values?
My God, we'd had
an earful of that tired, insincere, and exploitative theme from Republicans
over the previous couple of decades. You might say Mr. Clinton's impeachment
was the family values impeachment, spearheaded, as it was, by a Republican
leader who was sleeping with a staff member and a gross, pompous, old phony who
used to go nightclubbing with someone else's wife.
I know some will
say the impeachment was about honesty, but, please, where is there recorded a
single honest word from Gingrich, Hyde, Thurmond, Helms, Armey, DeLay, or
Gramm?
Of course, apart
from being the phony family values impeachment, it was an embarrassing
demonstration of incompetence: all that massive effort and expense without so
much as having taken a head count on the likelihood of success.
Mr. Gore's
ineffectual campaign never touched this claptrap and hypocrisy. He was afraid
to do so, even though he had a record as one of the straightest arrows in
Washington. He simply ignored a massive, steaming heap of garbage that had been
left on America's front lawn in Washington. Yet, he managed to blame Mr.
Clinton for his loss.
It is with no
regret whatsoever that I wave goodbye to Mr. Gore, not that I believe there is
another at-all-likely candidate of any real merit waiting for his or her
chance. (Note: I include "her" despite knowing that, over vast
stretches of America, this is as grievous an error as denying the self-evident
truth that all women should wear frilly aprons and bake cookies, a la Tipper.
She won't be missed either. Is there not something hopeless in that ridiculous
nickname for a middle-aged person?)
Now we have Mr.
Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond. Suddenly, there is a deluge of articles
and comments about how terrible his words were, about how Republicans are in
bed with racists. Well, Mr. Lott has a very long record, and Mr. Thurmond has
an even longer one. The greatest disgrace concerning these men is that a large
body of Americans has voted repeatedly over decades to keep them in high
office. Perhaps, most ridiculous of all, American liberals seem to forget that
Mr. Thurmond started as a Southern Democrat.
In the 1930s,
Eleanor Roosevelt prodded the great Franklin to speak against the horrible
lynchings of black people in the South, but the President felt that politics
would not permit this. Southern Democrats were a key part of his political
coalition, and Southern Democrats were segregationists, far worse in a number
of cases. So Franklin kept quiet on lynching, and, in some Southern states,
lynchings continued to be occasions for family picnics. I can't resist pointing
out the historic family values connection here.
The evolution of
the contemporary "Southern strategy" in American presidential elections
is based on little more than the fact that the same people who used to be
Southern Democrats (the Republican party having become anathema in the South
for more than a century after Mr. Lincoln's "evil" Civil War)
switched to being Republicans after the Civil Rights movement and Mr. Johnson's
"evil" voting rights legislation of the 1960s. Such is the slow path
of progress.
Poor Trent
forgot himself and will now likely pay the price. Neanderthal Republican hacks
like columnist Jeff Jacoby already have the kettle to the boil for rendering
Lott's hide, a fact which should alert us that some deeper political reason
lies behind these rare Republican chest thumping displays over principles of
decency. Again, I will wave goodbye with not a twinge of regret, although sure
in the knowledge that no better person waits to take his place. I can't help
feeling scorn over American liberals' satisfaction at Lott's pathetic statement
- pathetic, that is, when weighed in a balance against a lifetime's work in the
cause of backwardness and stupidity.
Of course,
thanks in part to Mr. Gore, we now have a President for whom competence is not
even an issue. He is the first Disney World-diorama President, capable only of
looking as though his plastic coated, mechanical jaw actually makes the sounds
coming from his computer chips. He has earned a place in history though, having
demonstrated that the presidency itself is now a Constitutional institution of
questionable relevance. The druid-priests to imperial plutocracy who scurry
around the White House keeping his servomotors running and downloading new
sound bites onto his chips - the creatures actually now running America - could
do just as well or badly if the Bush display were packed up and stored away in
the Smithsonian's basement.
Perhaps most
pathetic is American liberals' constant looking to the Democratic Party as
savior. Many progressive sites on the Internet display counters with the number
of days remaining in Bush's term. "Excuse me!" as many Americans
annoyingly say when making a rude point, but are we talking about the same
Democratic Party that has not said a word about mistreatment of prisoners,
torture, and murder since 9/11?
Mr. Clinton's
foreign policy, while lacking the Appalachian-throwback character of Mr.
Bush's, was often belligerent, often badly conceived, and largely reflected the
same set of interests. Dare I also mention Mr. Johnson launching into what was
to become the holocaust of Vietnam? Or the charming Mr. Kennedy trying
repeatedly to assassinate Mr. Castro, beginning the flow of troops to Vietnam,
creating the corps of professional thugs called the Green Berets, and nearly
engulfing the world in nuclear war? Or Mr. Truman's dangerous fiasco in Korea?
The same jingoistic, imperialist impulse remains dominant.
But I suppose
there is relief in longing for a friendlier face like Mr. Clinton's. That way
you can feel a whole lot better about what is going on. And it still will go
on, no matter whether Bush remains or not.
From the world's
point of view, there is actually some painful merit in Bush's holding office. I
believe already, without the President's crowd fully realizing what they've
done, that forces have been set in motion for historic realignments in
international affairs. Bush's Texas-barbecue-and-lethal-injection crowd is
driving all civilized nations on the planet to reconsider aspects of their
relationship with the United States, something that likely will have profound
consequences over the next few decades.
John
Chuckman lives in Canada and is former chief economist for a large
Canadian oil company. He is
a columnist for Yellow Times.org, where this article first appeared.