June 27, 2005

SPLITSVILLE:

Rove speech exposes fundamental split (Michael Barone, June 27, 2005, Townhall)

Reading the initial press accounts of Rove's speech, I wished that he had been more specific about which liberals he was denouncing -- except that, as those press accounts failed to mention, he was. "I'm not joking," he went on immediately after the words quoted above. "Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.) It was a petition that 'implored the powers that be' to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.'"

One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

Those who do not think this split is real should consult the responses to pollster Scott Rasmussen's question last year. About two-thirds of Americans agreed that the United States is a fair and decent country. Virtually all Bush voters agreed. Kerry voters were split down the middle.

This is a fundamental split. University and media elites, as Thomas Sowell writes in his forthcoming "Black Rednecks and White Liberals," promote a version of history in which all evils are perpetrated by the United States and the West and in which Third World tyrants are assumed to be the voice of virtuous victims. These elites fail to notice that slavery was a universal institution until opposed only by altruists in the West, in late 18th century Britain and 19th century America.

It comes naturally to those liberal politicians whose worldview is set by these elites to suppose that Saddam's Iraq was the land of happy kite-flyers portrayed in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and that, as Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said in a carefully prepared speech, American actions in Guantanamo are comparable to acts of the Nazis, Soviets and Khmer Rouge.


The Democrats' objections would be easier to take seriously if they hadn't handed over leadership of their party to the likes of Dean, Durbin, Pelosi, etc.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2005 8:35 AM
Comments

"One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters."

The actual split is between the money base and the voters. Naturally the politicians go with the former, except for the moments before an election when the voters are actually paying attention...

Posted by: b at June 27, 2005 10:41 AM

Tim Russert tried to snag Donald Rumsfeld on this on Sunday's Meet the Press, asking him if he believed all liberals were against the war on terror. But Rumsfeld kept coming back to the full quote and Rove's mention of MoveOn.org's post 9/11 peace ad and petitions, so after a couple of attempts to come at the question from a different angle, Russert gave up and went on to Bono and the African debt relief question.

Posted by: John at June 27, 2005 11:21 AM
« TAXES...SADDAM...SOUTER...: | Main | ONE MORE VARIATION: »