Mark Steyn's latest column on America's war on terror is entitled "The Defeaticrats." Here are some highlights:
"But what’s the thinking behind what the Democrats are doing?
"Easy, you say, it’s naked partisan politics. . . . . For Balz and for everyone he quotes in the piece, the point of a “policy on Iraq” is not to have a policy that impacts on Iraq in any real sense but to have a policy that advances domestic political fortunes. “Iraq” might as well be a board game you’re in the national play-offs of.
"Example:
"Her [Hillary Clinton's] refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.
"Note that Balz takes it for granted that Senator Rodham Clinton should have no principled position on Iraq, no strategic view of the Muslim world, no philosophical preference as to America’s mission abroad, no genuine concerns about security, etc. Indeed, he’s implicitly arguing that the greatest strength of Hillary as a viable Democratic presidential candidate – poor Joe Lieberman’s “joementum” won’t even place him in the Top Ten in the Iowa caucus – is that she’s the least encumbered with anything that will prevent her from agreeing with whatever the 10pm internal polling numbers are showing."
Steyn also hones in on defeatism:
"It’s one thing to be defeatist but the perverse triumphalism of [Howard] Dean’s defeatism will keep his party mired in the minority through 2006 and 2008. Even if they were right, what’s the “meta-story”, as they say, of Mad How’s soundbite? We’re the party that glories in defeatism? “Vote for us. We told you Americans were losers and we’re right.” Even as shameless self-interest, the Defeaticrat position is a flop."
Of course, there's nothing inherently defeatist about being a Democrat. All that would be required for the party to shed the "Defeaticrat" label would be a consistent track record of putting America's national security ahead of immediate partisan advantage.
If enough leading Democratic Party leaders showed a willingness to join as contributing partners in the war on terror instead of trailing behind reluctantly with grumbling and partisan sniping, the Democratic Party's future would take care of itself. More importantly, America might actually win the war on terror.
Comments