A DANGEROUS MOMENT FOR THE LEFT:

he more progressive candidate won (JULIA A. YOUNGS, November 10, 2004,
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER)

ot the fundamentalist vote, the pro-life vote nor the "traditional definition of marriage" vote that decided this election. It was Bush's progressive agenda that kept him in office. [...]

Bush's victory was due to the fact that nationally the majority of voters was tired of the status quo, tired of the knee-jerk conservatism of the left and wanted a progressive administration. Kerry wanted to take us back to the ideas, policies and attitudes that prevailed before the 9/11 attack -- to the days when the repeated attacks on America (the World Trade Center, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole) were treated as isolated criminal acts of a few international gang members in places far away.

The majority of Americans wanted a candidate and an administration with new ideas and a plan, and the Democrats offered an administration that was anti-everything. Their foreign policy was against proactively pursuing terrorists, despite the fact that the majority of Americans approved the decision to go to war in Iraq. The left has shown itself conservative and reactionary on the domestic front as well, resisting in political lock step such progressive ideas as the testing, standards and performance required by the No Child Left Behind Act, against any reasonable limitations on abortion, against any and all aspects of "ownership society" such as partial privatization of social security or health care savings accounts, against tax reform proposals such as the flat tax. Unfortunately, petulant disgruntlement is not much of a plan, and progress and security require much more.

Regardless of which candidate you voted for, there is something to celebrate. The outcome is refreshing proof that to win the presidency in America, you must stand for something. Kerry ran a reactionary campaign focused on what different factions disliked about the president. He focused on what he did 35 years ago (did you know that he served in Vietnam?) instead of what he's done for the last 20 years as senator, let alone presenting any sort of plan for the future.

Because the Left so thoroughly controls the media they may be able to avoid having this become conventional wisdom, but if the reality that they are nothing more than defenders of a 1970s status quo settles in they're in big trouble.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 10, 2004 6:11 PM