NEVER RETREAT

Drudge is reporting that the Clintons intend to campaign for Gray Davis in California against the recall. It seems to me that Democrats have recently shown a senseless tendency to defend their officeholders -- any officeholder -- against attack, no matter how incompetent or unpopular he might be, and even if a Democrat would replace him. Democrats I knew were outraged at the Clinton impeachment and passionate in their defence of Clinton, even though Gore would have replaced him and Clinton wasn't doing anything for them in his last years in office. They seem similarly inclined to go to the mat for Gray Davis even though a Democrat would probably be his replacement. Outside of politics, we've see the New York Times cling to partisanship even as its reputation suffers.

In each case this stubbornness seems to me against their best interest. Gore would have had a leg up in 2000 as a sitting President; the Democrats would have seemed more moderate and less dangerous. Similarly any number of California Democrats would be more attractive to the voters than Gray Davis, who is widely regarded even among Democrats as corrupt. Likewise the Times would have more credibility and influence on the big issues if it were occasionally willing to retreat from tendentiousness on small issues.

The Democrats resemble a general who is incapable of ordering a retreat, or indeed of issuing any order except "Attack!" Why is this? It may be evidence in support of John Jay Ray's psychological theory of leftism.

Posted by Paul Jaminet at July 29, 2003 12:39 AM