Justifying Left-Wing Violence

In the wake of the violent riots spreading like wildfire throughout Great Britain, a not-all-too unfamiliar narrative is unfolding in the Orwellian world of left-wing punditry. It seems that some on the left are eager to partially excuse the violence by attributing it to economic disillusionment among the British youth.  Disillusionment, the argument goes, brought about by Prime Minister David Cameron’s conservative policies aimed at reining in out-of-control spending and deficits.    

This morning, CNN anchor Carol Costello quoted a British Blogger Laurie Penny, who explained the riots this way:  "The people running Britain had absolutely no clue how desperate things have become...They thought that after thirty years of soaring inequality, in the middle of a recession, they could take away the last little things that gave people hope, the benefits, the jobs, the support structures, and nothing would happen."

There you have it. According to Ms. Penny, senseless rioting is the rational manifestation of government policies allegedly designed to destroy the social safety net. No context, such as the unsustainable extravagance of the British welfare state, is given.  

Recognizing the similarities between Britain’s austerity measures and calls for fiscal responsibility by conservatives here in the US, Carol Costello asked her viewers whether these riots could spread to the US.  After all, she writes on Facebook, “The American middle class and the poor also think their government has no clue. And they worry it is about to take away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at a time so many depend on them to survive. For many Americans what's happening in Britain is like looking into a mirror.”

What is most striking about this line of thinking is not that Ms. Costello oversimplifies the complex issue of entitlement reform or that she engages in class warfare. It is the implication that violent riots carried out by “the middle class and the poor” in the US would be a rational reaction to policies which she deems objectionable. In other words, we shouldn’t be surprised by rioting if conservatives get their way.

Imagine if a conservative pundit floated a similar sentiment during the heated debate over Obamacare? He would have no doubt been accused of justifying if not inciting violence.Of course, there was no violent reaction to the Democratic takeover of one sixth of the US economy. American conservatives organized peacefully and spoke loudly at the ballot box last November.

The idea that the violent rioters are anything other than thugs who have no regard for private property, little regard for human life, and a deep-seated disdain for law and order is a grave insult to the thousands of UK citizens whose livelihood is being destroyed and whose personal safety is constantly being threatened.  

It's also telling that while peaceful tea-party rallies are slandered by the left as hubs for violence, actual left-wing violence is excused and explained as an acceptable reaction to "unjust" policies. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Laurie Penny yearns for the pre-Margaret Thatcher days of nationalization; a time when standards of living in the UK were much lower than they are today and private entrepreneurship was discouraged and squashed by an overbearing government. She laments the current efforts to restore fiscal sanity by falsely representing necessary austerity measures as an assault on people's livelihood. For her part, Carol Costello falsely claims that politicians want to take away people's Social Security and Medicare and implies that violent rioting would be understandable if entitlements are reduced.

Not everyone on the left is rushing to excuse the riots. But those who aren’t are mostly silent. The silence is deafening when you consider how hard the left strains to portray the tea party as a racist, extreme and potentially violent movement. Where no violence exists, the left bellows in indignation. When left-wing violence is front and center for all to see, conservative policies are blamed.

Politicizing Tragedy and Perverting History

In the aftermath of the disastrous earthquake that hit Haiti, most in the global community are focusing their energies on relief operations and charitable contributions. But as is almost always the case, some political activists are exploiting the tragedy to make a political point. Pat Robertson inexplicably blames the earthquake on a "pact with the devil," referring to Haiti's independence from France in 1804.

The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."

But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.

In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":

Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)

Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.

The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).

Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957.  In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.

Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.

To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:

The usual excuse, that a government like Haiti’s is weak and suffers from corruption, doesn’t hold — all the more reason, indeed, to work with the government. The ultimate goal of all aid to Haiti ought to be the strengthening of Haitian institutions, infrastructure and expertise.

Mr. Kidder is right in the sense that foreign aid should be used to strengthen institutions, but his prescription for rescuing Haiti is too vague to be meaningful, since we have no idea what kinds of institutions Mr. Ridder has in mind. Based on his inability to grasp the root cause of Haiti's plight and his attributing all of Haiti's problems to colonialism and slavery, we can only assume that Mr. Kidder is in favor of perpetuating some form of third-world despotism.

As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.   




         

The Art of Politicization

It wasn't long after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack that leading conservatives doubled down on questioning the wisdom of President Obama's anti-terror policies, including the closing of Guntanamo Bay and trying terrorists in American criminal courts. Much of the criticism was tempered, addressing legitimate points of controversy over how to keep America safe.

Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office.

Predictably, Dick Cheney's blunt statement sparked wide outrage among liberals, who accused Dick Cheney and other critics of "politicizing the war on terror." I have written in the past that a favorite left-wing talking point is that Republicans use the "politics of fear" to win elections. I explained that this charge is hypocritical, since virtually every left-wing message--from global warming hysteria to blocking social security reform--is primarily grounded in fear.

The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:

As usual it starts with a has-been like Dick Cheney acting as if that war is some party issue, as if the country is somehow more vulnerable to fanatics because Democrats have the White House and the Congress, as if all those who hate America and want to kill Americans see this tremendous opening to do that because Barack Obama is in charge now...Cheney looks at a near tragedy on Christmas and sees opportunity. When he does, he doesn't just sound like some old crank in the park. He sounds like a bum.

So there you have it: Dick Cheney is out of line for suggesting that Obama is making America less safe and using the incident as an "opportunity" to attack the President. But Lupika's indignation belies the fact that the left has consistently and unrelentingly politicized every element of George Bush's national security agenda, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, as has The Iraq War, the NSA Surveillance program, CIA interrogations, etc. In fact, in a stroke of brilliant irony, Mr. Lupika repeats some of these charges in the same breath as he declares that "war isn't a party issue":

He [Cheney] acts now as if the last administration were some kind of triumph, as if the economy collapsed on somebody else's watch the way the towers of the World Trade Center did.

Did you get Lupika's not-so-veiled attack on the Bush Administration, implying that George Bush is accountable for 9/11 because it happened on his watch? Adding that "the America Obama inherited is hated more now than it was pre-Bush," Mr. Lupika is blatantly politicizing the war on terror in an article condemning the politicization of the war on terror.


Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.

Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.



 

The Filibuster: Friend or Foe?

Senate Democrats, liberal interest groups, and their allies in the media are growing increasingly angry at the perpetual filibuster threat posed by the Republican minority. Over the weekend, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced plans to reintroduce legislation that would effectively eliminate the filibuster.

To be fair to Senator Harkin, he did introduce similar legislation in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority. However, news stories and op-eds questioning the wisdom of the filibuster are more prevalent now that the Democrats control both chambers of Congress. On the CBS News Blog, Bob Fuss laments the filibuster in an article entitled "How Filibusters are Strangling the Senate." The liberal columnist Paul Krugman makes a similar argument in his New York Times column. But these columnists didn't object when Democrats used the filibuster during the Bush Administration. This is because the left-leaning media is indignant that the Republican filibuster could derail a liberal agenda, but were all too happy too see a Democrat filibuster undermine a conservative agenda. 

This kind of transparent bias and hypocrisy extends beyond the politics of the filibuster. TV anchors and pundits are quick to echo the Democratic Party line that Republicans are "obstructionists" and label the Republican Party the "party of no." Yet when Democrats were in the minority, Republicans also accused Democrats of obstructionism and the media did not legitimize that talking point.   

In 2005, after the Democrats successfully filibustered ten of George Bush's high-profile nominees to the federal courts of appeals, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have required a simple majority to approve a judicial nominee. The Democrats and most in the mainstream press cried foul. Now the tables have turned, and the Republicans (and centrist Democrats) use the filibuster threat, while Democrats ponder some variation of the nuclear option. But as Byron York points out in the Washington Examiner, there is a major substantive distinction between filibustering judicial nominees and filibustering legislation:

The argument was that the judicial filibuster undermined the Senate's constitutional responsibility to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominations. When legislation is filibustered, it's possible for a bill's sponsors to make changes that will satisfy opponents. But what happens when a nominee is filibustered? No advice and consent. The Constitution does not require the Senate to pass a national health care bill, but it does require it to confirm or deny the president's appointees...So Republicans came up with what was called the "nuclear option"... GOP lawmakers made clear at the time that they were not going after the legislative filibuster...(emphasis added)

It is understandable for politicians to support a parliamentary tactic when it advances their agenda, and oppose it when it does not. It makes sense for those in the majority to label the recalcitrant minority "obstructionist," and then when political fortunes are reversed, turn around and obstruct. This is somewhat hypocritical, but such is the art of politics that self-interest usually trumps consistency. What is not acceptable or intellectually honest is for so many in the media to bemoan the filibuster when it threatens a liberal agenda and celebrate it when it hinders a conservative one.   

The Missing Doctrine

After hearing President Obama deliver two of the most seminal speeches on foreign policy so far into his Presidency, historians and pundits have been trying to discern the Obama Doctrine.

Following the West Point speech, disillusioned liberals were infuriated that Barak Obama chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while hawkish conservatives were pleased by the President's decision to follow the counsel of his generals (and not his left-wing base), but critical of the arbitrary timeline. Thus, both factions found the speech confusing; liberal doves could not understand how a Nobel Peace Prize winner could double down on President Bush's war, and conservative hawks didn't get why a necessary war mandated an arbitrary exit strategy.

After the Oslo speech, liberals were once again perplexed by the ostensible contradiction of sending more troops to promote peace (really, a non-contradiction as I explain in the Peace through War blog post) and conservatives resented the frequent admonishments of controversial Bush era policies.

No one seemed to be completely satisfied by the President's two major foreign policy speeches. But I think the larger story--and one that does not bode well for Obama's legacy-- is that no central Obama Doctrine emerged. There was nothing unique in either of the speech. Obama declared that as Head of State he has a responsibility to defend his nation. Ok. Obama argued that success in Afghanistan is critical to America's national security. Ok. Virtually everything Obama said has been said before, often by his much maligned predecessor. Interestingly, there were times when Obama enunciated elements of the Bush Doctrine:

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.

This is a fascinating declaration considering that the idea of America fostering freedom around the world is perhaps the central Bush Doctrine to which President Bush devoted the bulk of his Second Inaugural Address. The left never gave George Bush credit for establishing a link between America's national security and global freedom, and then candidate Obama joined the chorus of liberal detractors who mocked the idea of America's exceptionalism being used as a vehicle for freedom. But that is precisely what Barack Obama implies in his West Point speech.

To many liberals the President's Oslo speech was reminiscent of George Bush. And they are right. Throughout the speech Obama invoked numerous Bush themes, most notably his recognition that there is evil in the world. Recall how mercilessly the left mocked George Bush for his characterization of Al Qaeda fighters as "evildoers". Well, presumably to the chagrin of left-wing moral relativists, here was Obama making the identical claim.

In the end, President Obama made a case for war but he failed to unveil an Obama Doctrine. Liberals were left disheartened, conservatives lukewarm, and historians scratching their heads looking for the missing Obama doctrine.  

   

The Art of Hypocrisy

As sex scandals involving celebrities and politicians pile up, a common theme is emerging among liberal commentators: conservatives who commit adultery are hypocrites, because conservatives defend traditional values and the institution of marriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the sin of adultery is more heinous if committed by a conservative.

Joy Behar is just the latest liberal commentator to make this (almost) unbelievably idiotic argument. Tune into MSNBC, and you will hear David Shuster, Contessa Brewer and a host of left-wing commentators play the hypocrisy card.

Unbeknownst to most liberals making the claim, the implication of the hypocrisy argument is straightforward: liberals like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, et al, who commit adultery are not hypocrites, because they are pro-adultery. That's right, if conservative adulterers are hypocrites because they stand up for traditional values (like marital fidelity), then liberal aduleters must not be hypocrites because they don't think that adultery is wrong. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Liberal adulterers, like their conservative counterparts, always repent and usually issue a public apology. Naturally, the mea culpa suggests that liberal adulterers do in fact recognize that adultery is unethical. Therefore, they are equally as "hypocritical" as the conservative adulterers.

Because conservatives tend to highlight the importance of family values more consistently than liberals, liberals take a perverse pleasure in exposing conservative adulterers (even those who don't run on social issues) as hypocrites. This is understandable. But it certainly does not then follow that liberals aren't being hypocritical when they commit adultery. I have never heard a liberal adulterer caught in the act proclaim that he is "pro-adultery", and therefore immune to criticism. Perhaps it makes sense to hold conservatives who pontificate about family values to a higher standard than liberals, but it is ludicrous to suggest that liberal adulterers aren't hypocrites. Until we hear a liberal politician proclaim that he is pro-adultery, we can safely conclude that all aduleters, regardless of political affiliation, are technically hypocrites.        

Howard Dean's Change of Heart

In what is probably being treated as an insignificant footnote by traditional media and the blogosphere, Howard Dean made what I thought was a shocking confession on Fox News Sunday: he thinks Medicare Part D--George Bush's transformative health-care reform legislation, which lowered drug prices for millions of seniors-- has been working exceptionally well, despite Howard Dean's harsh criticism of the bill during passage:

Howard Dean: ...I think the Republicans actually did some good things with it with Part D. And I was wrong at the time about Part D. It's worked out very, very well.

The acknowledgement is particularly surprising coming from Howard Dean, who as the early frontrunner in the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary, was one of the most visible and fierce critics of the Bush Administration. To my knowledge, Dean is the first prominent Democrat to publicly praise Medicare Part D. For years, Democrats demagogued the legislation, ignoring its positive effects, and using it as an opportunity to vilify two of its favorite targets, the Pharmaceutical companies and George Bush.

Many Republicans and movement conservatives also opposed Medicare Part D, arguing that it was unfunded, too expensive, and further expanded the size and scope of government. While the criticism from the right was predictably along the lines of traditional conservative opposition to an expanding Welfare State, Democrats' criticism was largely disingenuous because it belied the bill's practical effect of making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. While I was never a big fan of Part D (it was not as targeted as I would like a government program to be), the Democrats' hypocrisy in blasting reform that many liberals have favored for years was glaring.

Howard Dean's change of heart is a welcome--albeit partial--reversal from what has been a concerted effort by the Democrats to demonize every aspect of the Bush presidency. Perhaps, in the next few years, other Democratic leaders will follow suit.       

 

Politicizing War

On last Sunday's Meet the Press, moderator David Gregory asked Mississippi Republican Gov. Haley Barbour about the possible political implications if President Obama does not send the additional 40,000 troops requested by his commanders. Here's an excerpt from the exchange:

GOV. BARBOUR: ...And I will tell you now, for myself and I think a lot of Republicans, if the president will stand up, make the tough decision to send more troops, Republicans like me will stand up and say the president's doing the right thing. He doesn't have to worry about Republicans trying to politic this. If he stands up and does the right thing that the military's asked for, we will say good for you, Mr. President.

GREGORY: And if he doesn't? Are you saying the opposite is true, that it'll become a political issue?

GOV. BARBOUR: It shouldn't become a political issue.

GREGORY: At all? Even if he doesn't?

GOV. BARBOUR: I don't think it should become a political issue.

GREGORY: Because implicit in that is if he doesn't do the right thing it will be.

GOV. BARBOUR: I'm one of those who believes in foreign policy, the politics ought to stop at the border's edge. And I've always believed that. I believed it when I was in Ronald Reagan's White House and I believe it no matter who the president is. Now, when the presidential comes--presidential campaign comes; but right now, if the president does the right thing here, I'm going to applaud him. If he doesn't, I'm not going to criticize him.

David Gregory pressed Gov. Barbour on the point that the Afghanistan War might become "a political issue", implying that there would be something untoward about politicizing war. Gov. Barbour quickly dismisses this notion, reaffirming the traditional view that "politics stops at the border's edge."

While Mr. Barbour's view ought to be commended, one can't help but recognize the remarkable hypocrisy implicit in David Gregory's line of questioning. As anyone who followed the Bush Administration knows, the Democrats politicized the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars for years, making the unpopular Iraq war a central political issue in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars became the Democrats' pivotal line of attack against the Bush Administration as early as 2003. For David Gregory to suggest that it would be inappropriate for Republicans to use President Obama's handling of the Afghanistan War as a political weapon is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, given the Democrats' and President Obama's track record of politicization.

There is also something to be said about the substance of the attacks against George Bush compared to the potential attacks against Barak Obama. In the early years of the Iraq War, Democrats criticized the Bush Administration for not sending enough troops into Iraq, while at the same time paradoxically arguing that it was the "wrong war at the wrong time". In later stages, Democrats were calling for a Congressionally-mandated withdrawal irrespective of the conditions on the grounds, fighting tooth and nail George Bush's counter-insurgency strategy, dubbed "The Surge", which among other things, called for more troops. In other words, the Democrats weren't merely against the tactics employed in the Iraq War; they were against the war itself. At the same time, Democrats were calling for more resources to be committed to Afghanistan, which President Obama argued was the central front in the War on Terror.

Fast forward to today. President Obama's field commanders are implementing the President's counter-insurgency strategy unveiled in March of this year. General McCrystal has called for at least 40,000 additional troops to help accomplish the mission that President Obama and the Democrats argued for years was at the heart of the War on Terror. While we await the President's decision, David Gregory wants to caution the Republicans against politicization. But if the President does in fact not meet the demands of his field commanders, how can anyone blame the Republicans for the War becoming a political issue? After all, it was President Obama who argued for more resources to be committed to Afghanistan, while calling for the end of the mission in Iraq. In his years as an NBC reporter and now as the moderator of Meet the Press, did David Gregory or anyone else in the left-leaning press question the ethics of the Democrats' politicization of the Iraq War?

Haley Barbour's old school attitude that politics stops at the border's edge may be noble and in the best interest of civility in politics, but that sentiment was entirely vitiated during the Bush Administration by Democrats seeking to exploit for political gain a difficult and increasingly unpopular war. If Republicans use the President's decision (or indecision, as the case maybe right now) on Afghanistan for political gain, it will be markedly different only in the sense that whereas Democrats criticized President Bush for trying to win the Iraq War, Republicans would be criticizing the President for not fulfilling his campaign promises, not implementing his March strategy, and not pursuing victory.   

The Politics of Fear

A popular charge leveled by Democrats is that Republicans routinely use the Politics of Fear to advance their agenda and win elections. Used throughout campaigns and policy battles, this charge is arguably the Left’s most forceful and consistent talking point vis-à-vis Republicans. Whenever a controversial issue is debated at the national level—be it immigration, healthcare, terrorism, or education—you can count on Democratic leaders and activists to play the Politics of Fear card.

The transparent hypocrisy of this charge is perhaps best illustrated by the Democrats' efforts to portray mainstream Republican policies as being detrimental to the middle-class, minorities, or some other critical demographic or voting bloc. For example, George Bush's agenda of partial and voluntary social security privatization was disingenuously branded by Democrats as "full privatization" leading to severe cuts to social security payouts. As the anti-reform marketing blitz intensified, seniors became increasingly fearful that social security reform could undermine their livelihood. Similar tactics were used to attack and discredit vouchers for private schools, across-the-board tax cuts, and tort reform. The central theme of the left's opposition to most conservative policies is that bad things will happen to the average American if these policies are implemented. This is glaringly the much maligned politics of fear.

Whereas Republicans rely on fear and other negative emotions (e.g. hate, anger, etc.) to advance policies, Democrats are presumably armed only with the self-evident wisdom of their proposals. This is of course a farce. The global warming hysteria that has come to dominate the United States' energy policy is grounded in fear. Climate Change alarmists tell us that we either have to cut CO2 emissions or face a calamity of biblical proportions. Regardless of whether one views climate change as a serious problem, it is obvious that climate change activists use fear to raise awareness.

Throughout the War on Terror, when George Bush would say that there are terrorists who want to kill us—an incontrovertible fact—he was accused of using fear tactics. As Republicans and movement conservatives solidify their opposition to President Obama’s healthcare proposal, they are dismissed as fear mongers.

Yet when Democrats argue that the War in Iraq and a litany of other Bush-era programs have made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, we are made to believe that this is straight talk and not an effort to scare Americans into opposing President Bush's policies. However, rightly or wrongly, instilling fear is the precise intent of these Democratic talking points.  

But there is a larger point here besides rank hypocrisy, which is that all politics is grounded in fear. The underlying message of every political movement is that bad things will happen unless the movement succeeds. Fear is at the root of political ideology. After all, it would be difficult to gain a passionate following for a cause if your followers did not believe that the alternative to your movement would adversely affect them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather the nature of politics.

Barak Obama's message during the 2008 campaign was that John McCain's policies would further damage our economy, make our country less safe, and not move our country forward. In short, then-candidate Obama's message was that if you elect John McCain, bad things will happen to you. Of course, President Obama had a positive agenda--as do all candidates for office--but beneath the surface of "hope" and "change" was the central implication that John McCain would be bad for this country. This is undoubtedly the politics of fear.