NRO’s David Frum comments today, “It really is incredible that the Democratic party seems determined to nominate a candidate who sounds, as James Taranto put it, like a conceited 15-year-old.” (Taranto’s original words are here.)
That statement is true, if by “the Democratic party” you mean “Democrat primary voters.” The party establishment hasn’t been tripping over themselves to support Howard Dean, for reasons both petty (he’s not one of the D.C. power-lunch crowd) and substantive (many power-lunchers think he’ll take the party way too far to the Left.)
If he weren’t mildly scary, I’d be inclined to laugh at Howard Dean. For a man whose entire state has far fewer residents than cows, he certainly thinks a lot of his leadership ability. “Mr. President, if you’ll pardon me, I’ll teach you a little about defense.” He could teach the president how to avoid military service, but it’s tough to think of a defense-related subject on which he could tutor the president.
Dean is the quintessence of the liberal Baby Boomer: boundlessly arrogant, with a self-regard that borders on the pathological. He is gripped by a vision of his own righteousness, and — mark this — his first instinct is to tear down edifices and destroy people. Just like his contemporaries who protested in Vietnam, he has no particular vision of the common good, other than a vague idea that he will assist the lowly once he finishes savaging the rich and powerful. In the meantime, he spews calumny and promises an armageddon for his enemies.
Quick trivia question: when was the last time a non-Southern Democrat was elected to the presidency?
14 comments
Comments are closed.
Answer to trivia question: John F. Kennedy
Correct! That was 43 years ago — and JFK only won by an eyelash. Doesn’t exactly bode well for an angry governor of a small, liberal northeastern state, does it?
What about Gerald Ford?
Oh yeah. He was never elected to anything nationally and was theoretically a Republican in the technical sense.
Dean’s idea of foreign policy is also a hoot. He’s hit Bush for his “petulance” on North Korea. But Bush is pushing a multilateral resolution of the crisis through US leadership aimed at getting the Koreans to submit to international pressure. AND Bush has pretty much ruled out the preemptive use of force. That’s petulant?
You wrote: If he weren’t mildly scary, I’d be inclined to laugh at Howard Dean. For a man whose entire state has far fewer residents than cows, he certainly thinks a lot of his leadership ability. “Mr. President, if you’ll pardon me, I’ll teach you a little about defense.” He could teach the president how to avoid military service, but it’s tough to think of a defense-related subject on which he could tutor the president.
I’m by no means supporting Howard Dean, but I’d like to point out that President Bush was quite adept at avoiding military service during the Vietnam War, in that he was one of the very few troops who stayed in America. One cannot deny that this could have had to do with his very powerful father and grandfather.
In my opinion, a good Catholic should be non-partisan. Both parties disagree with the Church over one thing or another, and both parties are wrong over quite a bit. Of course, when it comes to voting the pro-life candidate should always be chosen, but what I’m saying is that I don’t think a good Catholic should be glorifying Bush or the Republican party, anymore than I think one should be glorifying Dean or the Democratic party. Both are extremely sinful products of our secular society, and neither is worthy of Catholic praise.
Eric, JFK didn’t win by an eyelash — he won by several Chicago cemeteries!
True enough, Robin. I didn’t want to get into that, but yes, there’s a decent amount of evidence to indicate that Mayor Daly stole the election for Kennedy.
Also, Nathan — would you care to justify your statement that the Democrat and Republican parties are “extremely sinful”? They’re made up of sinners, sure, but what could you mean by that? Neither one is exactly the Baath Party.
Seems to me the Republican Party has done a lot to atone for its early anti-Catholic sentiments. From its pro-life platform to denouncing the Blaine amendments which stand in the way of school vouchers in most states, the GOP has become a party very friendly to the doctrinally orthodox laity of the Catholic Church. Added with the votes of born again evangelicals, the GOP social conservative alliance helps to elect state, local, and federal officials who fight in the trenches to reverse bad liberal policies on social issues. Meanwhile the Democrats stifle the views of their most conservative members and edge them out in party primary races in most others.
So as far as political action goes it would seem the most strategic course would be to use our leverage with the GOP since the Democrats don’t give a damn about the views of social conservatives, and most Democrats with socially conservative views have chosen to give up the fight. Which is why, for example, black Democrats who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage are silent on their party’s leftward lurch. Perhaps many of them have, unfortunately, put too much trust in men and not in God, seeing as they hope for social justice and economic “justice” through the devices of human government, rather than by trusting in God to vindicate the righteous and aid the poor.
Also, Nathan — would you care to justify your statement that the Democrat and Republican parties are “extremely sinful”? They’re made up of sinners, sure, but what could you mean by that? Neither one is exactly the Baath Party.
Well, I’d think the evils of the Democratic Party would be obvious. The majority of the party supports abortion, which technically makes the Democratic Party worse than the Baath Party (in that abortion has killed many more people than the Baath Party could ever have hoped to). The Democratic Party also supports a number of other immoralities, including same-sex marriage.
The Republican Party’s sinfulness is a bit harder to distinguish. But many Republicans support unjust use of capital punishment, which of course does kill people. Many Republicans are also notoriously racist, but I don’t think anyone could rightly say that reflects the views of the entire party or even the majority.
You’re right, Democrats and Republicans are not the Baath party. But they’re not a bunch of saints either, and neither is trying very hard to conform to the moral standards of the natural law and certainly not to the moral standards of the Catholic Church. That’s why I don’t think Catholics should be affiliated with them, but that’s just my opinion.
The Democrats are the racist party of the Slave Power, not the Republicans. . .
FWIW.
The death penalty is commanded by no one less than God Himself for several crimes.
However, these united States do not live up to the evidentiary standards required.
The Democrats want to permit, not mandate, abortion. I agree that they are indirectly responsible for abortions carried out under our current, radically pro-abortion jurisprudence, but they have not used the government to force any abortions. The distinction is crucial. (Everyone, take note: I am defending the Democratic Party.)
Please name a “notorious racist” who is an elected Republican. I’m talking about someone who thinks one race is superior to another race, not someone who’s aginst affirmative action. And whatever you think about capital punishment, in what respect does the Republican Party support its “unjust” application?
To say that both parties are made up of sinners is something you can say about Holy Mother Church. Or the Kiwanis Club. Neither is trying to “conform to the moral standards…of the Catholic Church,” sure, but one would expect that in national political parties in a country that is 74% non-Catholic.
However, there’s one party that actively works against abortion (sometimes, anyway), is proposing a federal ban on gay marriage, and sporadically attempts to foster a culture that is friendly to the traditional family. There’s another party that actively works against those things. Which one should Catholics support?
1. Didn’t say the Democrats mandated abortion, did I? If I did, I’m terribly sorry.
2. Is Jesse Helms still an elected Republican? I know Strom Thurmond just died. Anyway, these are both examples of “notorious racists” in the Republican party. Strom Thurmond actually said that the United States would be better off if it had stuck to segregation. C’mon.
3. I already said Catholics should vote pro-life. But Catholics shouldn’t support either party, in my opinion, because both are either directly or indirectly involved in murder and other serious mortal sins.
While Helms (now retired) and Thurmond started as segregationists, as did Klansman Robert Byrd (still serving, D-WV), they all claimed to have had a change of heart on the subject of race relations.
Helms was even acceptable to the civil-rights activist James Meredith, who had broken the color barrier by enrolling at Ole Miss in ’62: he went to work on Helms’ staff in 1989.
I’m not sure what kind of “support” for a party Nathan would consider improper for a Catholic. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Which of these *don’t* describe President Bush: “boundlessly arrogant, with a self-regard that borders on the pathological. He is gripped by a vision of his own righteousness, and — mark this — his first instinct is to tear down edifices and destroy people [in other countries].”
You are deceitful to suggest that Dean has no positive vision of the common good. Here’s a sample: affordable health care for all, more jobs (by supporting small business and family farms), actually providing funding to improve education (unlike Bush’s deplorable “no child left behind”), and regaining the U.S.’s moral authority in the world by supporting international treaties and organizations and opposing unjust aggression.