The means by which we may divine their method of governing is to observe the actions of their campaigns. Not just their words, but the words allowed by them in their name. Not just their campaign slogans, but their campaign tactics. By not simply dissecting their policy positions, but by dissecting the methods they use to prove those positions superior to those of their opponents.
In his 2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative." Th
e "conservative" part of this was the belief in keeping a balanced budget, limiting government bureaucracy and reducing our military presence in foreign states. The "compassionate" additive was intended to instill the idea that his conservative policies would still leave room for the poor, the sick, the middle class... to assure that their needs would not be ignored in favor of economic theories centered around big business and the rich. He claimed he wanted religious organizations to play the role of facilitator and helper, to enrich the democratic process and not to dominate it. How were we to know that instead, he would engineer the most intrusive, expansive and expensive government bureaucracy in many of our lifetimes, if not in U.S. history? What, if any, signs were there that he would place very specific religious beliefs not alongside, but above the most cherished values of our country?
In hindsight, his actions gave him away, we just weren't looking. When he benefited from racist propaganda concerning McCain in South Carolina, he happily accepted. He did not fire the man responsible, Karl Rove, he followed Rove's advice more than ever. He visited and spoke side-by-side with some of the most extreme fundamentalists our country has to offer. He spent hours pleading his case to Tim LaHaye, winning LaHaye's endorsement and full support. From speaking at Bob Jones University to keeping in constant phone contact with radical preachers such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, he showed he was interested in a very specific, apocalyptic version of only one religion. There was no compassion there. His words insisting otherwise should have rung hollow. These factions wanted religion not as an assistant to American government, but as the commanding officer. Bush's disregard and even disdain of anything to do with science, diversity of opinion or even basic international news was evident throughout.
But this isn't about Bush, it's about whether or not we can learn anything from history. Up until just over a week ago I felt that both Democratic candidates for president were equal. Wherever one had a better policy point than the other, there was a different issue where the reverse was true. One could bring new energy and a greater number of people to join the progressive cause. The other spent the better part of two decades under brutal, unjustified attack by the forces of injustice and intolerance... and knew how to fight back. Congressional races, more progressive primary candidates, restoring the rule of law, the FISA bill... all of these were more significant fights to me than which of these two won the nomination. Not anymore. The nomination may not be greater but it certainly has become equal in its importance.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has shown her to likely be a continuation of George W. Bush, healthcare notwithstanding. During my entire lifetime, it has always been a Republican who argues that any success achieved by a minority or female is BECAUSE of their being a minority or female. Geraldine Ferraro said she took offense to being portrayed a racist and was owed an apology. No one suggests, or believes, that Ferraro hates black people; or that she thinks they are somehow inferior. But that's not the only thing that defines racism. Ferraro has plainly, and repeatedly, stated that Barack Obama did not achieve his standing or stature on merit. That it was given to him.
As if he did not fight for everything he has accomplished from the streets of Chicago to the halls of the Senate. Saying, in essence, that "he isn't a uniquely eloquent speaker, he's just black and "articulate." She cannot still be considered a progressive while being that oblivious to the plain meaning of her own comments. It has always been the Trent Lotts of the world who have claimed that a black man would not have gotten his job/appointment/college acceptance if he had not been black. Republicans have always been the ones who have argued so vociferously, and so absurdly, that whites were being discriminated against (especially if they themselves happened to be the ones losing). By claiming to be victims of unjust racism, they obscured any merit their arguments may have had and simply crossed over into the realm of the asinine.
By not disassociating herself from Geraldine Ferraro, and merely "regretting" Ferraro's comments, Clinton clearly does not completely disagree with the substance of what was said. After such a long wait before any official break from Ferraro, Clinton and her campaign should have at the very least made clear that what Ferraro said was absurd. From her personal experience on the side of progress, Hillary knows exactly why Ferraro's statements were offensive and WRONG. She most certainly should know (as should Ferraro, for that matter). Even if its just for political gain, allowing such preposterous statements to stand undenounced is only something the cohorts of George W. Bush and John McCain could advocate.
If it were only this issue, then it would certainly not be enough for us to predict a right-wing style of governance. Let's now take a look at one of her tactics and methods. The "3 am" ad. Plenty of progressives have already picked this ad apart. Ridiculed the assertion that without many, many years of congressional or military experience Obama would be dumbfounded by a critical international incident requiring his attention in the middle of the night. Laughed at how few years she actually has on him in terms of Washington experience and at how McCain could bludgeon her to death with her own ad in the general election. But that's not what should gall us as liberals, as Democrats. For the past seven, long, grueling years, we have asserted that we aren't frightened of fighting our enemies. That those on the other side of the aisle were the ones who were terrified, willing to abandon all ideals and principles. The Republicans would destroy everything we stand for and have ever desired to stand for, in the name of national security. We have argued that fear-mongering is tyrannical and un-American. That to fight terror is to hold our ideals in the face of their extremism and stand by our beliefs. To not be terrorized.
But that is what her ad does, it terrorizes. It says "be afraid." It has gone beyond her ad, now. She has been repeating this line on her stump speech. Her surrogates squeeze it in whenever possible on cable tv appearances. They now echo what Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales and McCain have said for the past several years. And that is, "America does not matter. You will die and your children will die if you do not give America up, and cede your freedom to us."
But, as progressives, we don't believe that. We believe that the terrorists are little more than scum who can be hunted down, captured, tried and convicted. As we have done before. They are barely worthy of our attention, now we should cower in fear of them? No, we will engage the assistance of our allies and the elicit the acquiescence of our enemies. Spread freedom through our example, not through our bombs. That doesn't mean we refuse to fight, we simply acknowledge that other measures are more effective and far more economical. We won't talk to our enemies to give in, but to let them know we're watching. To tell them, "There may be incentives in cooperation. If not, we still have cruise missiles pointed in your direction."
It wasn't long ago that such a policy was not liberal but merely American. U.S. Presidents from Eisenhower to Clinton, including J.F.K., Nixon, Carter and Reagan (Reagan!) adopted this strategy to our overwhelming benefit. Hillary Clinton ridicules Obama's assertion that we should return to what made us successful. Worse, she paints it as dangerous naivete, just as the neo-cons did while silencing us for the better part of a decade.
Her speeches and ads in combination show that she too believes that terrorism requires of us to give in to a unitary executive. One who will threaten war on unrelated countries, alienating their populace, and will abandon our allies if they do not support us unconditionally. Those policies isolate us when we should be isolating the terrorists and tyrants who would threaten the innocent. History shows we win not only the support of our allies, but the respect and admiration of those our enemies would enlist when we hold fast to our ideals in the face of inhumane brutality. Unfortunately, Clinton believes as Bush does.
Worse, if she were elected president, she would begin her presidency with all the unchecked power that Bush has accumulated in the Executive branch over his two terms. She may even be given the trust of the Congress and the public to not abuse those powers unless necessary. But she's already shown she will resort to fear-mongering to gain support. Why would she suddenly revert to a reasoned approach when in office?? Her mocking of progressive foreign policy should send a shudder down any Democrat's spine as to how the next eight years may go. Its these adoptions of right-wing assertions on foreign policy that show Senator Clinton's true colors. Or color, in this instance, as in red. The methods she is using to make her point that she is the better foreign policy choice are the same methods that are used against Democrats. It isn't that attack ads are not allowed to liberals. Attacks are unpleasant, but completely within bounds. It's just that when the ads attack our values as progressives, we should do more than just take note. We must reject and denounce.
I am imploring the supporters and surrogates of Senator Clinton to take a hard, long look at these tactics. Aren't your own ideals and policies being repudiated here? Which president's foreign policy is being applauded... Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush? Which president's social equality policies are being upheld?
It is clear whose lead Senator Clinton has decided to take here. We have tried in vain to have the Democratic Party stick up for its principles these past seven years. As progressives, as liberals, as Democrats are we going to reward those who ridicule what we believe in, or those who hold fast? When negative charges are leveled by one's own supposed political allies, and accepted without clear denouncement by supporters, it lends those attacks more weight. Just look at how we were able to use McCain's comments about "agents of intolerance" to show that even those on their own side recognize the extremist preachers for what they are. Clinton's use of right-wing talking points gives those arguments a false sense of legitimacy to the general public. All Democrats must show that these are not valid points by rejecting them in their totality. How do we do that? By treating Clinton and pollster Mark Penn as Republicans from this point forward. Link them to Bush and McCain and drive home the distinction between their attacks and the beliefs of the Democratic Party. In other words, no more playing nice, Obama, let loose on Clinton as you would McCain. Or just talk about them as one and the same... fight back against both at the same time. Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Mark Penn and their companions HAVE ABANDONED OUR CAUSE AND OUR PRINCIPLES. It is not just their words which prove this but their actions on multiple issues. If we are to ever have any hope of regaining control of the Democratic party we have to reject those who clearly have rejected us. These people are NOT progressive. They are NOT liberal. They should not be Democrats. Not ones we vote for, anyway. THEY SHOULD BE BRANDED WITH A SCARLET "R" AND CAST OUT OF THE PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY... well, figuratively speaking, anyway.
Let's stop voting for people who will bow to the will of the Republican party by making sure they actually believe in OUR foreign policy ideals, OUR civil rights policies and OUR civil liberties.
posted by Weapon X 
