The Angry Left

Ed Kilgore explains:

Think about it. Since 1998, we've witnessed the first presidential impeachment since the 1860s, the first presidential election to go into "overtime" since the 1870s; the first attack on the continental United States since 1812; the first major preemptive "war of choice" in U.S. history; and the first televised destruction of an American city. I don't mean to equate any of these non-9/11 occurances with what we witnessed that day, but it has been an extraordinary span of time.

If you want to truly understand why Democrats (especially those whose entire formative political experience has been the last decade) are so often "angry," remember the behavior of the leadership of the Republican Party in all of the non-9/11 events I've mentioned. And then remember what the president and vice president have done to destroy the national unity and worldwide symphathy this country enjoyed just after 9/11, typically viewing domestic unity and global approval with ill-disguised contempt.

I only hope that Ed can appreciate that part of the reason there's a lot of anger also directed at a somewhat nebulous "Democratic establishment" is precisely a perception that at just these moments of conservative perfidy to which he points, the response mounted by said establishment was notably ineffectual.

Comments

"the response mounted by said establishment was notably ineffectual."

Not only was it ineffectual but it practically invited more perfidy from the right. Their timidity and cowardice emboldened the right.

DLC types have moved the Democratic party into the role of an abused spouse, crouched in a fetal position, forever begging "please don't hit me". This has had the effect of turning the Delays/Gingrichs into more vicious attack dogs.

Even now, after all this abuse Democrats as a party can't come out and say they will defeat the nomination of GOP dirty trickster Ted Olson for Attorney General. They are begging a president with 30% approval rating "please don't hit me".

Compare that to the GOP conduct. They impeached a president with 60+% approval rating. And they have paid no political price. They just don't care.

Democrats as a party don't need "new ideas". They don't need ideological adjustment. What they need is a spine. They need the will to fight.

Posted by DonB | September 12, 2007 5:50 PM

I'll never understand why liberals are so invested in having the rest of the world feel sympathy for us. It's as if they wanted Bush to think "YES! We had 3,000 murdered! They'll feel bad for us, so we can get whatever we want!" This sympathy, if it ever truly existed at all, was always destined to be ephemeral, regardless of what actions the U.S. took. It's just human nature.

Posted by Homer | September 12, 2007 5:53 PM

Except whether you call it sympathy or whatever else you want, Homer, international opinion of the United States does have profound effect on our country. The idea that it doesn't is precisely the worst of American exceptionalism and arrogance.

Posted by Freddie | September 12, 2007 6:02 PM

Re Matthew's comment "the response mounted by said establishment was notably ineffectual."
----------
So ineffectual as to make one wonder about "the enemy within".

Well, in the case of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, not WONDER exactly.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 6:04 PM

Ed also forgets to mention the increased deficit, elimination of habeas corpus,the "K Street Project," the attorney-firing scandal, "black site" secret prisons in Europe, and the list goes on.

Really, though, I'm curious who Ed's readership is supposed to be. Evidently some really, really out-of-touch or not-very-smart people, that they need all this explained to them.

Posted by James Gary | September 12, 2007 6:07 PM

Senatorial Dems: 'we don't have 60 votes to prevent a filibuster'

House Dems: 'we don't have 2/3rds to override a veto from Bush'

Alternate approach: we have 41 votes to conduct a filibuster and we won't be a toothless opposition to Bush/GOP

or: We refuse to vote to provide a majority in the House for laws that enable further BushCo rapes of our Republic.

There are two kinds of spine: positive spine to pass what the Dems believe in, while making it clear that the negative spine is a club behind our back that we won't pass bad legislation (or approve BushCo appointments).

If we can't have positive spine without winning more seats, lets have lots negative spine - and damn the torpedoes, we won't go along.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | September 12, 2007 6:09 PM

I don't really buy it.

Aside from the truly singular nature of 9/11, which gets two spots on the list anyway, the rest of the list is fairly technical and tendentious. It gives short shrift to so many extraordinary moments in American history.

True, we hadn't had an actual impeachment since Andrew Johnson. But Watergate is reasonably close, no? It featured the only presidential resignation, ever. And if you need something more recent, Iran-Contra was a bit of a kerfuffle.

True, the 2000 election was a fiasco. But there are plenty of electoral shenanigans to talk about between 1870 and now. JFK's strange election returns out of chicago, for instance. FDR won the office four times, deservedly, but in defiance of a tradition that went back to Washington. You've also got Nixon's dirty tricksters again . . .

The "first major preemptive 'war of choice' in U.S. history" may be true, I don't honestly know. But we've undoubtedly had our fair share of military misadventures, especially in our own hemisphere. Or, say, the Philippines.

Finally, it's a bit tricky to use the continental nature of 9/11 to elide the significance of Pearl Harbor as an attack on the U.S.

So . . . I don't buy it.

Posted by southpaw | September 12, 2007 6:09 PM

Re Freddie's comment "Homer, international opinion of the United States does have profound effect on our country. The idea that it doesn't is precisely the worst of American exceptionalism and arrogance."
----------
Actually, I would have no problem with telling the rest of the world to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut -- if the United States' national interest was seriously at stake.

The really sad thing, however, is that most of Bush's "screw you" behavior to the rest of the world has NOT been in the national interest. It has been driven by Bush's compelling need to suck up to his rich patrons and to defend special interests like Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby.

Our Founding Fathers had "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind". Theodore Roosevelt said to "speak softly and carry a big stick " -- not to rant in a psychotic fashion and scare the shit out of the other nuclear-armed powers for no good reason.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 6:11 PM

Don Williams: "not to rant in a psychotic fashion and scare the shit out of the other nuclear-armed powers for no good reason."

That was artfully put (paging John Bolton!).

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 12, 2007 6:19 PM

remember the behavior of the leadership of the Republican Party in all of the non-9/11 events I've mentioned. And then remember what the president and vice president have done to destroy the national unity and worldwide symphathy this country enjoyed just after 9/11, typically viewing domestic unity and global approval with ill-disguised contempt

And likewise, remember the behavior of the leadership of the Democrat Party. And then remember what the Democrats have done to destroy the national unity, typically viewing domestic unity with ill-disguised contempt.

Posted by Al | September 12, 2007 6:28 PM

, remember the behavior of the leadership of the Democrat Party.

Are you agreeing with Yglesias, Al? That might be a first outside an NBA thread.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 12, 2007 6:33 PM

....And likewise, remember the behavior of the leadership of the Democrat Party. And then remember what the Democrats have done to destroy the national unity, typically viewing domestic unity with ill-disguised contempt.

I am rubber, you are glue...what specifically are you referring to, Al?

Posted by James Gary | September 12, 2007 6:33 PM

It's not simply that so many Democrats were ineffectual in opposing the Republicans, or that they were acting like abused spouses. It's much worse than that.

Many Democrats JOINED the Republicans. Because they define themselves as in opposition to the base. Because they think anti-war types are naive conspiratorialist idiots. Because they believe that the way to win elections is to advocate killing as many people as possible so nobody will accuse you of being weak.

I can only wish the Democrats had been merely ineffectual.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 12, 2007 6:37 PM

I don't think so, SCMT. I mean, we both want to examine how the Democrats behaved too, but whereas Matthew calls them "ineffectual" I'd call them "perfidious".

In any case, I think I was responding to Matthew's "it's all their fault" with a typically mature "no it's not, it's all your fault!".

Posted by Al | September 12, 2007 6:45 PM

Al: with a typically mature "no it's not, it's all your fault!".

I think I can be excused for first reading Al's comment as saying 'typically manure'.

Posted by JimPortandOR | September 12, 2007 6:54 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Al has wet his pants again.

Posted by grh | September 12, 2007 7:00 PM

The person you quote is apparently unversed in American history:

"the first major preemptive "war of choice" in U.S. history;"

Hmm. Without even trying to look anything up, there's the Mexican war (1848), the Spanish American War (1898), and the various gunboat actions in central and South America from the late 19th century through the present.

Before you try to make historical points, Matt, it might help if you actually learned some.

Posted by James Robertson | September 12, 2007 7:03 PM

Somewhat off topic but isn't it interesting that other Arab states are not very upset about the incursion of the IDF into Syrian airspace. On the other hand, apparently the Syrian government is upset about the fact that the other Arab states are not upset. In the meantime, the rumor mills are working overtime as to what the incident was all about. My strong suspicion is that the entire affair was merely the IDF testing the effectiveness of their radar jamming devices on the Russian antiaircraft equipment recently supplied to Syria via Iran. The other claims appear to be so much static.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411379734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | September 12, 2007 7:04 PM

Al, typing random words on a keyboard is not an argument. You can't even get specifics.

"I'll never understand why liberals are so invested in having the rest of the world feel sympathy for us. It's as if they wanted Bush to think "YES! We had 3,000 murdered! They'll feel bad for us, so we can get whatever we want!" This sympathy, if it ever truly existed at all, was always destined to be ephemeral, regardless of what actions the U.S. took. It's just human nature.

Posted by Homer | September 12, 2007 5:53 PM"

Ever been in a relationship when you enter a moment where the other person feels bad for something and you can take advantage of it if you act fast? It's like that. People weren't going to feel sorry for us forever, but we could have 1) shown in our time of mourning that we are a responsible, trustworthy superpower and 2) gotten some tangible benefits (ranging from free trade agreements to more counter-terrorism cooperation, etc.).

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 7:15 PM

Re: They impeached a president with 60+% approval rating. And they have paid no political price.

They lost seats (and two Speakers of the House) in the 1998 election, and would have lost the 2000 presidential election (where nary a word was heard about impeachment) but for the Supreme Court.

Re: Or, say, the Philippines.

Or the Spanish American War, trumped up over a coal fire that blew up the Maine's magazine. And what about Grenada, Panama and various other little Police actions"?

Re: It has been driven by Bush's compelling need to suck up to his rich patrons and to defend special interests like Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby.

Israel maybe-- OK, probably even. But I don't see that Big Oil or Big Defense needed any defense from Bush. Their profits were certainly secure before 9-11 and had there been no 9-11 and had Al Gore been in the White House they would have been laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

Re: And likewise, remember the behavior of the leadership of the Democrat Party.

Perhaps you could remind us whatwas so objectionable? I mean before the election of 2002 where solidly patriotic Democrat senators and congressmen, people who had supported Bush's psot 9-11 foreign policy without question, were nonetheless shown morphing in Osama bin Laden by GOP campaign ads. No, mon cher, it was the GOP that showed its true colors that year, using the bloody shirt of 9-11 to score partisan points. A dsisgusting and digraceful spectacle, repeated somewhat less viciously in 2004. Frankly, I hope the GOP goes the way of the Know Nothing Party. They have betrayed this country's ideals and interests, and deserve nothing but contempt.

Posted by JonF | September 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Count me as one who feels the Democrats have acted like cowards, unwilling to stand up to this Republican "movement" of the past 15 years. I can live with a few Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans, what I will not do is support people who refuse to press their advantages. From NAFTA to Iraq, the Democrats have fundamentally sold out. We believe nothing. There is no issue for which we are willing to take a risk. All the Very Serious talk from our candidates about residual forces and the dangers of precipitous withdrawls makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by Just Karl | September 12, 2007 8:08 PM

JonF: "They lost seats (and two Speakers of the House) in the 1998 election, and would have lost the 2000 presidential election (where nary a word was heard about impeachment) but for the Supreme Court."

For that price, they discredited the very notion of impeachment, which has come in very handy in the last couple of years.

Posted by Grumpy | September 12, 2007 8:21 PM

No, absent the Supreme Court, the election would have likely been disputed (the Florida legislature had voted to send a slate of Bush electors regardless of what happened with recounts).

In such circumstances, the election goes to the House, and given the makeup of the House at the time, and the rules in place for such elections, Bush would have won.

Now, I would have called that a better result, because the election would have hinged on votes taken by elected officials - officials who - unlike Supreme Court justices - are accountable on election day.

Posted by James Robertson | September 12, 2007 8:26 PM

...the first attack on the continental United States since 1812...

Ed's right of course; the reason the left is mad is because the GOP is a. incompetent and b. run by complete assholes.

To nitpick, however, Ed forgets about Pancho Villa's 1916 cross-border attack on New Mexico and the Japanese Balloon Attacks of World War II. Admittedly, these weren't particularly historically significant.

Posted by GiantDuck | September 12, 2007 10:47 PM

"If we can't have positive spine without winning more seats, lets have lots negative spine - and damn the torpedoes, we won't go along."

It's not about spine, it's about money. Democrats whore for the same defense contractors, oil companies, and AIPAC types as the Republicans. You need look no further than Pelosi caving to AIPAC demands to remove a provision in the funding bill that would have required separate Congressional authorization for war with Iran.

Posted by kafka | September 12, 2007 11:03 PM

"I only hope that Ed can appreciate that part of the reason there's a lot of anger also directed at a somewhat nebulous "Democratic establishment" is precisely a perception that at just these moments of conservative perfidy to which he points, the response mounted by said establishment was notably ineffectual."

I am not sure ineffectual is the right word. The "Democratic establishment" earned my intense and eternal anger and hostility when its response to these outrages was directed as an attack on those of us trying to oppose Bush and his henchmen rather than at the Bush regime itself.

Posted by della Rovere | September 13, 2007 12:12 AM

The last fifteen years demonstrate that "bipartisanship" has meaning to D.C. Republicans only when they're in the minority. Democrats need to suspend business as usual and act as if they actually have a congressional majority in a time of national crisis--vetos and filibusters be damned.

For starters, Harry Reid and his colleagues should refuse to approve Bush nominations for any and all regulatory, judicial and executive vacancies-­-from the Supreme Court to Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of State for Eastern Caribbean Affairs. Beginning with Theodore Olsen, if he's nominated to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by Geaghan | September 13, 2007 12:55 AM

Ooops, I pulled a Quayle: that would be "vetoes," not "vetos." Otherwise, to quote the master himself, "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

Posted by Geaghan | September 13, 2007 1:01 AM

SLC: That's certainly interesting stuff, but I would call it a bit more than "somewhat" off topic! What the heck?!

Posted by nbt | September 13, 2007 8:20 AM

'the first major preemptive "war of choice" in U.S. history;'

So what was the war with Spain? If you think that was a sad necessity forced upon the United States by a dastardly Spanish attack, I have this valuable Indonesian real estate I think you should buy...

Posted by Dan Hardie | September 13, 2007 8:27 AM

Re James Robertson

"In such circumstances, the election goes to the House, and given the makeup of the House at the time, and the rules in place for such elections, Bush would have won."

I believe that Mr. Robertson is seriously in error in this statement. The rules for the House voting to elect a president in the absence of an electoral college majority state that each state gets one vote. Thus, in the case of an even split of a states representatives between the parties, that state would get no votes. I haven't checked on this but, given the rather narrow GOP margin in the House, it is very unlikely that they had a majority in 26 states. In such a situation, the Senate elects the vice-president by a majority vote of all senators. Thus, the likely result of the 2000 election in the case of Florida electors not being accepted would have been Dick Cheney being elected vice-president by the Senate and acting as president in the absence of a duly elected president. Just to make matters more complicated, if the Senate after the 2000 election had been evenly split between the parties, the then vice-president, Al Gore would have had the deciding vote and could have voted in his vice-presidential running mate, Joe Lieberman as vice-president and thus acting president. It's even worse then that as Lieberman had been reelected to the Senate in 2000 and presumably would have voted for himself to the position of vice-president!

Posted by SLC | September 13, 2007 9:45 AM

It's nice to see Ed Kilgore say this, because he is a conduit to establishment elected democrats. Maybe they are learning that the attack dog feeds on their fear? One can hope.

Dear Al,
Please take your treason trash talk and kindly stick it where the sun don't shine.
Yours Truly,
N.O.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 13, 2007 10:07 AM

To nitpick, however, Ed forgets about Pancho Villa's 1916 cross-border attack on New Mexico and the Japanese Balloon Attacks of World War II. Admittedly, these weren't particularly historically significant.

Posted by GiantDuck | September 12, 2007 10:47 PM

************************************************
During WW II Japanese subs also surfaced and shelled an oil field near Santa Barbara and a coastal fort at the mouth of the Columbia River

Posted by Campesino | September 13, 2007 12:52 PM

Re: For that price, they discredited the very notion of impeachment, which has come in very handy in the last couple of years.

True but that was not their goal. They were trying to boot Clinton out of office. Had they succeded I suspect the backlash would have been strong enough (and Gore secure enough in incumbency) to have secured the 2000 election quite handily for the Democrats.

Posted by JonF | September 13, 2007 1:14 PM

the first major preemptive "war of choice" in U.S. history

WWI was certainly a "war of choice" under any rational definition of US interests, though I don't know that "preemptive" applies. US efforts in Bosnia could be seen as a "preemptive" action "of choice" but wasn't/isn't really a war.

All of this is moot, anyway. Preemption is a relatively uncontroversial topic anywhere other than the campus left.

The real problem is that this administration and its Neocon allies has defined the group "US interests necessitating military intervention" far too broadly. Go over to the Corner and read some of Ledeen's posts from the last few years to see what I mean.

Posted by Steve | September 13, 2007 3:27 PM

Bending over and grabbing their ankles? You call that "notably ineffectual"?

I remember the period after 9-11 as a nightmare of flag-waving insanity. When I first heard the news of the attack, my immediate reaction was 1) the jackboots will get a Christmas present of whatever police state legislation they couldn't cram into Clinton's 1996 bill, and wipe their asses with what's left of the Fourth Amendment; and 2) Bush will get a blank check for the national security state to promote corporate interests at gunpoint all around the world, in the name of fighting "terrorism."

I damn near kicked in my TV screen when I heard Dan Rather saying "tell me where to line up, Mr. President," and Daschle saying "there's no daylight between us and the president on foreign policy." The one time in a generation that we really need an opposition party to stand in the breach and defend our liberties and show some skepticism toward an out-of-control presidency, and those spineless, gutless, ball-less wonders cringed like a bunch of goddamned whipped dogs.

Fuckin' A I'm "angry."

Posted by Kevin Carson | September 14, 2007 3:58 AM