Digitus Impudicus

What Do We Do With The Democrats?

No, this isn’t going to be some detailing of a Machiavellian plan by Republicans (of which I’m not a member) to secretly “quiet” the Dems. Nor it is going to be shady hints at taking over the democratic machinery of the US government in order to turn this country in the RSA (as I read in a comment elsewhere, “you can guess what the ‘R’ stands for.”)

Rather, I want to talk about how sharply to non-traditional politicking the Democratic Party has turned during this election cycle, and what it bodes for them in the future.

In a number of ways the Democrats are showing the classic signs of an increasingly marginalized political organization: increased extremism and distancing from the mainstream of the public’s beliefs, adherence to “interest group politics” instead of going for a broader base, and (most disturbingly) a tendency of their fringe elements to participate in acts of vandalism, intimidation, and outright physical violence.

I recently referenced an example of this last that dealt with a man who had his daughter with him at a Kerry campaign event. This man is a Republican, and had signs with him to profess this. These signs were, apparently, forcibly torn up by union members who were supporters of John Kerry.

The union has apologized to the father, and to the little girl. But, strangely enough, a lot of commentary has circled around whether the father was a serial victim; intentionally putting himself in places, over several election cycles, where he’d find himself in confrontations with Democrats. I’m willing to stipulate, without reservation, that this is the case.

But I’d like to focus on the other important issue here: Why does it matter whether the father has put himself in these situations intentionally? Why would it end up in some kind of physical confrontation? Why does it end up that way so consistently? And who, exactly, is responsible for how it eventually turns out?

Is it the father’s fault for stating his mind? Even the union apology acknowledges his right to freedom of expression. Is it the father’s fault for expressing himself in close proximity to Democrats? I see no dearth of pro-Kerry supporters at Bush events. And I challenge readers to come up with significant and persistent examples Kerry supporters being roughed up at Bush events.

To my mind, this situation with the father has a lot of similarities to the CBS Document Scandal. CBS (in the form of Dan Rather) has insisted that Bush answer to the questions that would come to the fore should the documents be proved authentic. But those questions only come to the fore if the documents are, in fact, authentic. And not at all if they’re forgeries. Nevertheless, CBS insists that the “questions” be answered. This, of course, makes no logical sense (I'll provide an example of this later).

Similarly, the Democrats who have attempted to defuse the violence and intimidation issue brought up by the Sign Event are intentionally overlooking the obvious: Absent the actions of the union supporters of Kerry, there is no event to talk about. If this father had shown up at a thousand Kerry campaign events, waving his signs, and nobody took action against him then we wouldn’t be talking about this.

So the obvious question is: what’s the real problem here? Is it the appearance of the father at the campaign event, or is the problem the actions of the union Kerry supporters? Given the obviousness of the relevant question, I cannot help but conclude that the current lines of defense favored by the Democrats here is nothing more than intentional distraction. They’re not addressing the real problem. And they’re not addressing it because they know that they’ve got nothing to say that could be a justifiable defense of the actions of their fringe people.

I want to say clearly: I do not believe that the vast majority of Democrats support violence, intimidation or vandalism. However, and equally important, these same Democrats are not just staying silent on the issue, they’re intentionally ignoring the root issue in order to distract our attention away from a deep and abiding problem they have in their own ranks.

I don’t know why this is. Do the Democrats have some sympathy for those of their own who commit these unacceptable acts? Do they somehow “understand” these people, and forgive them for their transgressions? If (and I do mean if) that’s the case then they have a much deeper problem, and one that is far more pervasive, than I had originally thought. Which brings me back to the title of this post: What are we going to do with the Democrats?

Because if the Democrats are willing, even passively, to countenance the occasional eruptions of violence in their ranks, then they’ve rounded the curve of desperation from which they, as a party, may never return.

That’s their choice to make, of course. Albeit an illegitimate one. But each time one of their people lash out violently on local TV, each time an instance like the father’s experience makes the papers, each time a voter drives by a torn up or torched Bush/Cheney yard sign, the people of this country will, once again, be faced with a political party that appears to be losing the rhetorical debate and is now turning to brownshirt tactics.

I doubt that even the most ardent Democrat would want that view of their party to develop in the public’s mind.