- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Since 1980, Democrats have tended to blame their losing candidates for not being tough enough. They somehow believe their attacks on Republicans were not sufficiently sharp and that Republicans are more focused on winning and more willing to do whatever it takes to win.

I think this is nonsense generally, but especially so this year. There is no question that, on the shrillness meter, Democrats have won hands-down. Democrat friends of mine maintain George Bush drives them to it and that shrillness is the only way of breaking through the political stupor in which most Americans live.

If they believe this, it is fine with me, speaking as a Republican. It is utterly counterproductive in terms of winning over undecided voters and only preaches to the choir that already hates Mr. Bush. It even makes lifelong liberals consider the possibility of voting Republican. As The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen recently wrote, “Bush haters go so far they end up adding a dash of red to my blue, pushing me by revulsion into a color I otherwise would not have.”

I understand the futility of this sort of hate because Republicans used to be this way. Just read some of the vitriol hurled at John F. Kennedy by Republicans and conservatives in the early 1960s. It appears ludicrous now since Kennedy’s championing of big tax cuts, free trade and a strong national defense would put him on the far right wing of the Democratic Party — out there with Georgia Sen. Zell Miller — were Kennedy alive today.

The hate was borne of frustration, a feeling of powerlessness in a political system utterly dominated by liberal Democrats — Dwight Eisenhower’s two terms notwithstanding. Just as Kennedy would hold down the right wing of his party today, Eisenhower would certainly hold down the left wing of the current Republican Party.

Over the years, responsible conservatives have purged most real haters from the movement. They are still out there, of course, but are totally marginalized, with no political power or intellectual influence. And Ronald Reagan taught Republicans that optimism and a sunny disposition are extraordinarily powerful politically. Whatever one may think of Mr. Bush’s policies, he is much more like Mr. Reagan in his personality than is John Kerry, who often comes across as dour and impatient.

Another similarity between the Democrats of today and the Republicans of yore is that they have replaced each other as the party of the elite. Republicans once were caricatured as the party of big businessmen, financiers and graduates of Ivy League universities. The party’s base was on the nation’s coasts. The Democrats’ base was in the South and in the nation’s heartland. It was the party of working people — farmers and laborers.

Now, of course, the Democrats have become the party of the elite and their geographical base is precisely the same as the Republican Party’s in the 1940s and 1950s. As a consequence, the Democrats’ connection to working people has become tenuous at best. Some of the party’s own supporters know this and see it as key to its declining fortunes. In New York magazine — a publication written by and for the elite — columnist Thomas Frank wrote:

“One of the reasons Democrats are never able to mount a convincing comeback is because, at the bottom of their hearts, many of the party’s biggest thinkers agree with the ‘liberal elite’ stereotype. They can’t simply point to their working-class base and their service to working-class America, because they aren’t interested in that base; they haven’t tried to serve that constituency for decades.”

These days, being a billionaire or a professor at an Ivy League school are almost perfect predictors of being a Democrat. Churchgoing people who work with their hands are much likelier to be Republicans, partly as a backlash against Eastern liberal elitism.

As novelist Tom Wolfe put it: “I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East Coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a nonmorality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment.”

Along with taking over the Republican Party’s base, the Democrats have adopted its agenda. Republicans once obsessed about budget deficits, now Democrats do. It used to be Democrats who said Americans would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Today Republicans say such things and Democrats complain the cost is too high.

Whether Mr. Kerry wins or loses, the Democratic Party will not achieve long-term success as the party of the elite.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More

Click to Hide