QandO: Zell's Tirade (and mine)

September 02, 2004

Zell's Tirade (and mine)
Posted by Dale Franks

John Podhoretz reviews Zell Miller's speech last night at the Garden, as well as the hysterics it seems to have provoked from the Left.

The thing about the speech was that it was the type of stem-winder that used to be regular American political fare, but has gone out of fashion in the last generation. That may be why many people are having trouble understanding it.

Chris Matthews' first question for Mr. Miller last night (before Mr. Miller offered to meet Mr. Matthews on the Field of Honor) was, "Do you really think Senator Kerry wants to arm American troops with spitballs?"

That's just an extraordinarily stupid question. Imagine a reporter a century ago asking William Jennings Bryan, "So, sir, where is that Cross of Gold? Can you produce it? Does it actually exist?"

The polite term for someone who asked something like that a century ago was "congenital idiot." Today, I guess we'd call that kind of person a "Matthews".

But, that's just semantics.

The other thing about it was the lack of bipartisanship. A few nights ago, America's best argument for term limits, John McCain, went out of his way to tell us that we should all just get along, and everyone should agree that we all have the best of intentions.

That's the perfect epitome of all that's wrong with Washington. It's the whole, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality that's led to ever-increasing spending, and ever more government intrusion into Federal life.

John McCain and his ilk have been captured by Washington. They get fawning from the press, invitations to the best parties, and lots of money for their campaign treasuries. And, eventually, they forget why it was they went to Washington in the first place.

So, when someone like Mr. Miller comes out swinging, they hardly know how to respond. "It's mean!" they moan. "It's an vicious attack!" they whine. Which, I suppose it probably is, to people who are more concerned with pouring oil on the water than actually accomplishing their ideological goals.

Another thing that strikes me is the shrill response to Mr. Miller. Like this one, from David Gergen:

Indeed, an enraged David Gergen dared to compare Miller to Lester Maddox, the segregationist governor for whom Miller worked more than 40 years ago. Gergen said Maddox was "a man of hate," and that Miller was "a man of hate" too.

It's a good thing that guys like Gergen weren't around in the Federal Era. They'd have had a heart attack at the type of politics that we practiced then. The Hartford Courant, for example, predicted an outbreak of rebellion, apostasy, and destruction if Thomas Jefferson were elected President.

But, Mr. Miller, some hyperbole aside, was right. It was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, after all, who counseled us about our inordinate fear of communism, as if the Commies were perfectly willing to go along to get along, if we were. It was a Democrat, David Bonior, who led pilgrimages to Managua so he could grovel at the feet of the Sandinistas. It was Democrats, including John Kerry, who voted against the original Gulf War, even though the UN had fully approved it (which, by the way, makes their current objections to a lack of UN cover particularly disingenuous).

The unpleasant fact is that, for the last 25 years, the Democratic Party has increasingly become the party of defeatism, pacifism, and capitulation. The reason that Zell Miller stood on that exact spot in Madison Square Garden 12 years ago, and gave the Keynote address to the Democratic Convention was because he thought that Bill Clinton was going to pull his party back from the brink of it's plunge into transnational progressivism.

Turns out, Mr. Clinton was completely unable to stop his party's slide.

The Left, is entirely oblivious to this, as they are to many things. Firmly convinced of their own righteousness, filled with the importance of their mission as one of the anointed, it has become nearly impossible for them to accept criticism. Since they are so completely right, their critics must have ulterior reasons for opposing them, and be deeply morally deficient. They are "greedy" if they argue against higher taxes, filled with "hatred" if they oppose gay marriage, they are "warmongers" if they support defending American interests overseas without the full support of the UN, or NATO, or some other body that, unlike the US government, isn't responsible for securing American interests or national security.

So, if Mr. Miller breaks with his party, he must--since his party is so morally pure--be animated by hatred, just like Lester Maddox. Why, he probably secretly wishes he was out in the fields whipping darkies right now!

That kind of myopia is dangerous to both liberty and democracy. Once you have convinced yourself that your positions are fundamentally moral, while those of your opposition are fundamentally immoral, you've just laid the foundations of a totalitarian society. You're already setting limits on permissible thought and opinion. Sure, you're for free speech, as long as it's responsible free speech.

Well, if that's the direction we're headed, we may as well start surveying Montana right now, so we'll know the best places to build the gulags when the time comes.

The up side to that kind of thinking, is that it causes you to assume that everyone is supporting you. After all, how could anyone support your opponents, who are clearly evil. "Bushitler", you know. Indeed, everyone does.

So, you feel comforted when you see the polls showing you running neck and neck in a political campaign. Never mind that Pete Coors was "neck and neck" in the polls and won by 12 points. "An aberration," you huff. Once people get ready to vote, they'll vote for your side. You just know it.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Naturally, the Left is howling that Zell was "demogogic and shrill". Well, yes, there was one point at which Mr. Miller crossed the line into demagogy. But, after four years of stolen elections, "Bushitler", blood for oil, Bush AWOL, and all the rest of it, you know what?

I don't care.

If that's the way they want to play it--and by the way they've been howling about Bush for the last four years, I can only assume that it is--then now they can sit back a take a little of their own medicine.

TrackBack

Comments

I should point out that my problem with Millers speech was the misleading demagoguery, rather than the decibel level.

Anger, I can understand. It's when emotions get in the way of rational criticism that I take offense.

Posted by: Jon Henke at September 2, 2004 03:33 PM

Well said Mr Franks.

Miller is what we used to call a tried and true "Southern Democrat".

Many of us who started down that road have became vastly conservative due to the very reasons you mentioned here, and now I have become a stout Republican because of it.

One can only hope.

Posted by: BloodSpite at September 2, 2004 04:01 PM

Misleading demagoguery? The fact is, I don't know what Kerry would do in a crisis. Miller exagerated and used plenty of hyperbole. But when you boil down all of what is said, and after you study all the records, can you really tell what John Kerry would do?

I can't now, and I couldn't before Zell unleashed his diatribe.

Posted by: Mr. K at September 2, 2004 04:03 PM

"Naturally, the Left is howling that Zell was "demogogic and shrill". Well, yes, there was one point at which Mr. Miller crossed the line into demagogy. But, after four years of stolen elections, "Bushitler", blood for oil, Bush AWOL, and all the rest of it, you know what?

I don't care. "
One word... AMEN

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2004 05:26 PM

Preach it, Dale. Have another AMEN.

Posted by: David R. Block at September 2, 2004 05:30 PM

This is rich.

Here's what Dale said:

"So, when someone like Mr. Miller comes out swinging, they [those on the Left] hardly no (sic) how to respond. "It's mean!" they moan. "It's an vicious attack!" they whine. Which, I suppose it probably is, to people who are more concerned with pouring oil on the water than actually accomplishing their ideological goals."

Here's what McQ said in a subsequent post:

"But there is no argument and frankly no justification for the viscious (sic) attacks by the left on the Bush administration for the past two years in a time of war."

You better watch it, McQ, Dale is effectively callng you a whiner because all you can do is whine about vicious attacks. Next thing you know, he is going to say you lack the brass to admit it. He might even call you a girlie man.

It's almost like the other day with Bush. We can win. No we can't. Yes we can.

Sick as it sounds, it's almost fun to watch you guys trip over each other.

Posted by: mkultra at September 2, 2004 05:56 PM

mkultra-

at least you didn't cite them out of context...you kept in the key part of what mcq said..."in a time of war"

the fact that you don't see the distinction explains a lot to me...and I am learning volumes, reading blogs such as this...and then contrasting to what I see on Atrios.

...I don't equate an onslaught on a voting record equal to when dems call Bush a liar, or state he had advance knowledge of the attack on 9-11...or the many other outlandish statements by the Kerry campaign...and yes, the Kerry campaign equals all democrats, all 527's and Michael Moore, just as the Bush campaign equals SBVT's and all the rest.

Posted by: Mr. K at September 2, 2004 06:17 PM

MkUltra -
Say, you ARE a Democrat aren't you?
Do you even remotely understand the context of the statement "it can't be won".

No, probably not.

So, I'll give you a hand. It means it's a war that will NOT END. There won't be a VE day, or a VJ day, or an Armistice day in this war.
It is a war that will go on longer than 2 weeks, and so the Democrats and the Euros don't have the stomach to fight it. It can't be won by blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan or negotiating with the terrorists for the release of your reporters.

You guys are so charmingly hopeless. If he had to 'retract' the statement it's because old dumb George understood you 'gentlemen' would be on it like a duck on a junebug mischaracterizing what he meant. And sure enough...

The problem was maybe George thought he was talking to ADULTS when he made that statement. People who could look beyond the promised cookies and milk and keep their eye on a long range goal that was not going to be easy to achieve, and might not EVER be achieved.

Posted by: looker at September 2, 2004 06:36 PM

Mr K:

I got it - since we're at "war" - whatever that means, those out of power cannot criticize those in power, but the reverse is not true. Now I understand. How foolish of me not to see how wrong I was.

This is what the Right does not understand. Just because you call something a "war" doesn't mean it's 1943 all over again. During the Clinton administration there was a war on drugs. And yet, there was plenty of criticism of Clinton. So why was that ok?

Onslaught on a voting record? That's what you call what the Swift Boat Liars are doing? Wow. Now you know that's not true, even if you believe what they are saying.

Posted by: mkultra at September 2, 2004 06:51 PM

Ahnold will tell you it's only the girliemen who can't handle the truth from Zell.

It reminds me of Richard Nixon criticizing Harry Truman in 1960 for saying that the Republicans could "go to hell". During a debate with Kennedy, Nixon unctiously said he would hope to follow the example of Eisenhower (who often cussed like the career soldier he was but not in public statements as Truman was famously wont to do). Kennedy won the day with the rejoinder that he doubted he could do much to change the 76-year-old Truman. `Maybe Mrs. Truman can,' Kennedy said, `but I don't think I can', chuckling knowingly.

Prissyness is still not a good quality for a commander in chief.

Posted by: vnjagvet at September 2, 2004 06:53 PM

Looker:

Nice try.

If you had half a clue, you would realize that the whole notion of a war on terrorism - win or lose - is nonsense. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like having a war on fighter jets, or tanks. Having a war on it makes no sense. But that is the way Bush has chosen to define it. And that is why he is lacking the intellectual capacity to lead this nation: he doesn't even understand the nature of the fight. We are at war with an ideology, not a tactic. Now, if Bush had said that, then he might have a brain.

And if he had half a brain, then he wouldn't have corrected himself so quickly. But he did. He is the one who said the war on terrorism is winnable. Then he said it wasn't. Now he says it was. You can spin all you want - but all I ask is that he not flip-flop.

Posted by: mkultra at September 2, 2004 07:00 PM

Mkultra-
I can't argue with a guy who does not see that, after the attacks on 9-11, we are at war.

It was not a Bush conspiracy. It was an attack by true muslims, following the letter of the Quran. That is what I have deduced, after al hell of a lot of reading.

I believe we are war. You either don't see that, or don't want to.

Posted by: Mr. K at September 2, 2004 07:19 PM

MK-Ultra:

Apparently, you can't read for comprehension, so you perceive a difference between McQ and I that doesn't really exist.

Not that it matters. We didn't sign a pact to agree on everything to blog here. As fantastic as it may seem to you, we actually tolerate differences of opinion. I'm not responsible for what Jon or McQ write, nor are they responsible for me. Apparently, you think we are trying to do some sort of lockstep blogging, or something.

Shows how much you know.

Posted by: Dale Franks at September 2, 2004 07:53 PM

mkultra --

Although past experience indicates that you're not interested in actual discussion so much as trolling and pretending you're morally superior to the "right wingers," I'll see if I can enlighten you.

The problem is not dissent: reasonable people can and do disagree with the current administration's domestic and foreign policies, even though we are at war. The fact that Mr. Franks and McQ have different perspectives is evidence of this. However, accusations of "stolen" elections, that Bush either "let" or "made" 9/11 happen on purpose, comparisons with Hitler or a chimp, and so forth that have been the staple of the Left for the past four years are not reasoned debate. Neither are the list of Daily Kos-like talking points that you use in place of actual arguments.

If the Left wants to debate the War on Terror, let them cease with the childish accusations, slogans and "it's fine for me, but wrong for you" double standards, and put forth an actual strategy for winning the damn thing.

Posted by: Tom Ault at September 2, 2004 07:56 PM

I keep trying to get MK to switch to decaf, but I can't. And frankly he won't keep the tinfoil hat on either. Its becoming a problem.

Posted by: McQ at September 2, 2004 08:03 PM

I've discovered an ideal means of responding to MKUltra. If he writes something I find to be a credible, worthwhile challenge to my post, I respond to it. I'll give that the attention it deserves. (I would note that he has done so, and I have responded often)

If I don't respond, he probably hasn't made an argument I either take seriously, or regard as relevant to the post.

It really cuts down on the amount of time I spend debating what I've already written. (which, by the way, I enjoy doing in response to good challenges)

Posted by: Jon Henke at September 2, 2004 08:14 PM

MKU - scuse please - What a boat load of semantic horse hockey. Intellectual capacity?
Let's talk about intellectual honesty shall we?

"We are fighting a war on Ideology" Okay!!!
Applause!!!!! Yeah!!!!

Perhaps you'd have been happier if Bush just admitted he was making war on Islam.
But then he's not just making war on Islam, is he? He'll just as happily put the squash on terrorists in Northern Ireland if they fly planes into the Sears Tower, trust me (and probably get more help doing it). It just happened that the idiots who decided to wake the sleeping giant were from an Islamic country.

Let's describe what we're doing then. But let's avoid the use of the W-A-R word for the moment.

We're engaged in a long term struggle against other people who want to hurt us, and who want to enforce their belief system on us because our belief system quite frankly is a threat to theirs (Yeah, we're evil, we let our women drive cars and get an education).
Were theirs not a belief system right out of the 12th century maybe we could discuss the idea that perhaps their system is superior to ours.
Perhaps you'd like that they come from one country, clearly defined, that they have a flag, an identifiable army, a nice looking uniform. Frankly so would I. But they don't. You'd like perhaps they come in larger quantities than 19 guys and 4 airplanes, or 1 woman and 15 pounds of plastique. But they don't. So, we can't call them a country. Hmmm, no one the UN can sanction and shake their finger at with great menace. Alas.
But still, there's an enemy, nationstate nonentity aside, and they are more or less organized into what would pass for units (they really like the terms "Army" for 10 guys, and "Brigade" for 5)

"Terrorism is a tactic". Yes, and so is a frontal assault. So is laying down suppressing fire on a target. So is calling in an artillery strike. What do all the 'tactics' have in common? They are an application of deadly force intended to assist in achieving an objective.

What is the objective? To make us stop being the way we are. Preferrably to make us behave more like they want us to behave. Presumably they can't achieve it in just one act of terrorism (though they did EXACTLY THAT in Spain). So they launch a series of deadly force applications to achieve multiple objectives that will allow them to attain their desired ends.

Gee, this is beginning to sound remarkably like we could use the W-A-R word to describe what is going on without having to use a lot of semantic claptrap.

If it'll make you semantically happy - add the letters "ist" to the word TERROR next time W says we're fighting the war on Terror. Generally most of us understand that to be the case I think.

Posted by: looker at September 2, 2004 09:20 PM