The 3 percent solution
Our friend Peter Schramm at No Left Turns deduces "The meaning of the election" in eight numbered theses. The highlights are numbered five through eight:
5 - The Democratic Party is in disarray. It is possible to argue that the realignment that had started back in 1980 is now rolling on. The Demos have some serious soul-searching to do, and not only regarding who they think they will be able to run 2008. They have to think about who they are and what they stand for; they have to think through what their principle and purpose is; they have find their soul, if they have one. In his concession speech today Kerry said something about wanting to change America. Change America? Why? What is America, what has it been, and why does it need changing? Maybe those delicately dining on a croissant understand this kind of talk, but those of us munching on a doughnut do not. We think that America is just fine as it is, and we glory in the things for which it stands. And we naturally mistrust those who think otherwise.Although I agree with the propositions underlying each of these theses, I lack Peter's confidence that the Democrats will remain a minority party at the presidential level for another twenty or thirty years unless they change their stripes. The Clinton administration brought to power many officials such as Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger who were devotees of the McGovern/Mondale view of the world. Clinton himself earned his political spurs helping to run the McGovern campaign in Texas.6 - Kerry and the Demos (that is the post 1960’s Demos) don’t understand that Americans still think in moral terms, in terms of right and wrong. We are not post-moderns. Hence they don’t understand our religious sensibilities, and even have contempt for them (and us). We think that marriage should be marriage, and allowing life to be born into this breathing world is better than stopping it. Life is good and self-government is good and the principle that brings them forth is fine and noble and something to be appreciated and loved.
7 - We think that our prejudice should be in favor of such a country and such a people. This is a political axiom. It is not debatable, and we don’t trust anyone who doesn’t share this view. The strategy and tactics of the war on terror and Iraq may be debated, but not our purposes regarding our actions. Even if you disagree with our policy, say in Vietnam, we suspect your purposes when you compare our citizen-soldiers to those who fought for Genghis Khan. We take deep offense at that comparison. We don’t appreciate it when our commander-in-chief is called a liar because you disagree with him. Why are the feminists not proud of the effects of our actions in Afghanistan? Do they really think women should be covered head-to-toe and walk five paces behind their male masters? Look at Afghan women line up to vote and listen to the girls talk about becoming doctors. Is this not a grand thing? Democrats should bebate the means of our foreign policy, not question our purposes. It is not tyrannous for the world’s last best hope to be strong and courageous. It is, rather, a good thing when power is attached to purpose; let us have the practical wisdom to use it for the good and the noble. Allow us citizens to be proud to think that we are--in principle, if not in every action--the friends of those fellow human beings who love liberty, wherever they may live.
8 - We think that this is one country. It is neither a mini-united nations, nor a country divided into two, the haves and the have-nots. Demos should stop talking as if it were 1936 and we are on the verge of economic collapse, and the economic pie can never grow. They should remind us that our work creates our wealth, and encourage us to work and prosper. The purpose of government is to insure that opportunity. How we spend our public monies is secondary point, and depends entirely on the first. Let the Democratic Party think upon these things and maybe they can reach a point in twenty or thirty years when a Democratic candidate for president of the United States will be able to gather over 50% of the vote of the citizens. This hasn’t happened since 1964. Until that day, they will be the minority party of the country. They had better start looking for their identity, and start that search now before it is too late.
When the electorate rejected George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984, it did so on each occasion by a margin of roughly 20 percent. The McGovern/Mondale/Kerry view of the United States has made enormous inroads in the past twenty years. It is less than three percent short of a majority and the trendline seems to be moving in its favor. Shouldn't we be asking what we need to do to roll it back before it crosses over to majority status?
DEACON adds: Trunk has added a very healthy dose of realism here. Triumphalism is fine for a few days, but eventually we will need to face up to the fact that the presidential election was too close for comfort.
I guess I take a middle-ground position. I don't think the McGovern/Mondale view is making serious inroads in the sense of being embraced by the public. But it is making inroads because the Democrats have become clever enough to disguise it to some extent from voters. Clinton was a master at this, and Kerry gave it a decent try. The MSM, of course, abets these efforts.
