Page Two

A letter-writer in a recent issue of The New York Times wrote that he was happy the Republicans triumphed because, having proven to be such sore winners, imagine what they would have been like if they had lost.

Too often, the active right doesn't seem to get it: They won. Not only in the most recent election, but for most of the past decade, they've been politically dominant. They are the party in power. Agendas are not "being set" by them; they're established and acted upon. The right does not represent rebels just now entering the halls of power – oppressed outsiders too long lacking any voice in policy – as they like to portray themselves but, instead, the administering governmental power. Even accepting the ridiculous myth of liberal dominance of American media, culture, and politics (denying a reality dominated by a conservative/status quo/powers-that-be/business/economic class), they've long turned the tide. Yet, all too many partisans are still much more interested in attacking "liberals" than in advocating anything.

This allows them to assert their moral superiority, laying out just how much smarter and more realistic they are about the world, economics, social realities, and the American dream – not to mention more deeply religious and thus closer to God.

A letter to the Chronicle "observed, much to the bemusement of liberals, President Bush's unapologetic embrace of faith – which apparently has translated into his running of a 'Christian fundamentalist campaign.' Mr. Black, and others who think similarly, may never understand mainstream America's respect for a man of genuine faith over opportunistic appearances at black churches. He may never understand why mainstream America supports plainspoken honesty over eloquent pandering. He may never understand why mainstream America chooses steadfast resolve in national security issues over 'wet-finger-to-the-political-winds' internationalism. He may never understand why the average, middle-class American's desire to achieve the American dream is diametrically opposed to the left's constant insistence that success be punished by redistributing wealth."

This approach identifies most serious issues facing this country as the consequence of deliberate political activity. The most generous spin allows that these are perpetuated by unrealistic, easily manipulated bleeding hearts who don't understand real Americans. The harsher take brands them as anti-Christian, anti-American, immoral traitors determined to destroy this country. Neither interpretation allows for genuine policy differences or acknowledges the enormous complexity of many social problems. It's so much easier to blame liberals than to deal with the extraordinary difficulties facing our country.

A recent letter in the Austin American-Statesman noted, "Many of us have frequently confronted the ugly face of liberal rage when they could not get their way. The viciousness of the left has been largely unreported in the biased media. ...

"The left wanted a new federal government that would give everyone the right to do whatever he or she pleases no matter how immoral or destructive their behavior. And liberals have an indomitable faith in the idea that taxing 'the rich' will enable the government to finance their every folly."

Consequently, loyal partisans need only attack liberals; they really don't have to defend Bush's appalling record except in the most abstract ways: The administration is standing up to terrorism, not afraid to flex American muscle or too foolishly concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us; domestically, it is made up of morally guided, Christian believers who love God and the Constitution and who believe in the rights of the individual and the economic rewards to be reaped by not overly restricting initiative or unfairly taxing rewards.

Crucial to this point of view is defining things strictly in terms of opposition. Difficult times, social problems, international tensions, and consistently inefficient government persist not because society is inherently complex and constitutional democratic government awkward and unwieldy by nature. The issues are not social, political, economic, or cultural problems, the missteps in addressing them, or the monstrous difficulties of our living together in this country and on this planet. The problem is bad guys.

Thus in my case, these correspondents would argue, my differences with the current administration presumably have nothing to do with my deep, abiding love of this country. They do not represent a different philosophical approach and a passionate concern for my country, its people, the world, and the future. Disagreements aren't over principles, policies, diplomatic perceptions, ideology, and history. Instead – at best – I'm misguided, ignorant, and anti-American; at worst, I'm an openly subversive traitor pandering to foreign ideology and enemies.

This, of course, is nonsense. There are competing ideological visions, philosophical differences, conflicting assumptions, and different moral values among those who care about this country. These are not strictly defined by party loyalty but are much more diversely spread. The best government over time (not necessarily the best government at any given time) is achieved as the founding fathers envisioned: through debate, dialogue, cooperation, conflict, polemic, hostility, compromise, negotiation, disagreement, and, sometimes, strident political conflict. I am distressed by the current vicious, anti-democratic assault on the Democrats aimed more at eradicating the two-party system than at supporting any specific ideology. But I would be just as upset if the Democrats were doing the same to the Republicans. In the past, the parties were much more mixed in the range of voices they represented. The left has long been as critical of Democrats as are Republicans. It's not about party. It is about what's best for the country.

Democrats have abused power as much as any politicians. Just because the right blindly champions the leaders of its political party, I'm not going to follow suit. It was nearly impossible to work up much enthusiasm for Tom Daschle, for example, except that the determination to defeat him was so partisan. The Democrats in power did crappy things, lots of them. Democratic party leaders are politicians – and politicians, after all, are an inherently compromised lot. In order to criticize the current administration, I will not be put in the position of having to or being thought to defend/support previous Democratic leaders or actions.

Unlike many – Democrats, liberals, leftists, etc. – I find demonizing Republicans contemptible. This doesn't mean I don't disagree with them, but I don't buy the argument that they are evil fascists, deliberately out to destroy this country. Most of us want to do what is best for this country but disagree over what that is and how to do it.

Just as passionately, however, I reject the right's demonization of its opposition. Dismissing, marginalizing, and disenfranchising those you disagree with is not just a lousy way to govern but is in direct contradiction to this country's Constitution. Attacking ideas, disputing policy, decrying legislation – in other words, battling over ideas – is not the same thing.

The next few columns will further explore the assertion that "Although idealistic, Democrats are the realists, and, although realistic, Republicans are the idealists."

"Idealism" might well be the wrong word. Ironically, the right, though denouncing secular humanism and moral relativism, insists that the world as they wish to see it is the world as it is. This view is formed more from political belief, religious faith, personal familial values, and perceptions of other communities, religions, societies, and people as it is from experience, history, precedent, or analysis.

Exploring this position will take time. Let's begin by laying out eight domestically oriented right-wing assumptions that are beyond idealistic in their disconnection to reality:

1) Government is a perversion, a distortion of nature, and not a reasoned response to problems that couldn't be and weren't being dealt with in any other way. In particular, social policies, welfare legislation, and government-supported health care, mental health care, job training, and education programs are illegitimately created, imposed on this country by Marxist liberals. The social safety net did not evolve over a long period of time as a series of considered attempts to deal with significant social problems by legislators of both parties. The federal government and its programs represent socialistic subversion that depends on stealing Americans' money through taxation, as well as being overwhelmingly unsuccessful.

A corollary is that if federal programs are abolished or, at least, severely trimmed, there will be minimal consequences. Any legitimate problems (of which there probably aren't that many) will be handled by religious organizations, the free market, and the effort of concerned citizens.

2) Most of what the government does, and most of the money it spends (which is our money), does not have a positive impact on our community, our family, or us.

3) The programs that do aid us are the ones that the government obviously should be running, and should not be cut.

4) Government services and efficiency need to be improved. This can be done easily by cutting fat.

5) Many people are leeches on the government. Bloodsuckers, they are living off the money the government steals from us. This robs them of their self-respect and will to succeed.

6) Bush's tax cuts were substantial for all Americans. The very richest got the largest cuts because they pay the most taxes. The money they save will be pumped into the economy, which will continue to grow at a rate that will compensate for any budget deficits.

7) It doesn't matter how large the national debt gets. (Before Reagan and Bush II, this one was anathema to "conservatives." Times change.)

8) The constitutionally mandated separation of church and state has been invented or exaggerated by atheists, secular humanists, activist judges, and proponents of the gay agenda, to the detriment of American society.

The November election did offer a mandate – not in Bush's margin, but in the overall Republican victories. But a mandate for what? Some would have us believe it is for national strength, safety, individual freedom, and moral values. But, as with their fundamentalist Muslim brethren, much of the right's overall bitch is not with specific policies and issues, but the modern world. The future is unknown and unknowable. The past is easy to romanticize. There is a mandate, but a pathetic one, based on dreams more than realities, delusions more than practicalities, embracing a vision of a past that never was and proposing a future that is unachievable. Unfortunately, this is a journey that we are all going to be on, and it isn't going to be pretty.