Accidental Blogger

Bereft of bright ideas or gutsy moves, the Democrats’ winning strategy of choice is "If you can’t beat them, join them." A few of posts ago, I argued that it is not necessary for the Dems to try and project themselves as a goose stepping, heel clicking, "martial party", in order to win elections or have credibility on national security. It appears now that some of them think that it is also a good idea to co-opt the Republicans on "moral values" by quoting Scriptures during policy debates. Poor showing at the polls and the rare success of southern Baptist Bill Clinton who spoke with a preacher’s cadence, have convinced Democrats that wearing religion on their sleeves may return them to the glory days of being the majority party. (The main culprits here are Bill Clinton, Sen Joe Lieberman and the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton). Someone with a knowledge of modern medicine (Dr. Dean?) ought to remind them that it is not necessary to fight poison with poison – effective antidotes work better.

Ever since Ronald Reagan hijacked "family values" by encouraging public display of religiosity (while cutting or weakening "family friendly" programs), the Democrats have been floundering. They don’t know how to regain their position in the public’s mind as the party that cares about real family values like wages, affordable health care, education and workers’ rights. The American public it appears, trusts Scriptures quoting politicians more than those with a no-nonsense, secular message of "bread and butter". When Howard Dean promised to bring poor white Southerners (who vote Republican in order to guard traditional values regarding "god, guns and gays") under the umbrella of the Democratic Party by appealing to their economic interests, the whole matter got buried under the Confederate Flag, mostly due to the outrage expressed by fellow Democrats! To recapture the public’s confidence on family values, morality and wholesomeness, some Democrats feel that religious texts and Biblical references should serve as their reliable source for public persuasion. In his article , Joseph Loconte of the Heritage Foundation warns that a "Religious Left" is worrisome too.

"When Christians — liberal or conservative — invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics, they threaten our democratic discourse. Numerous "policy papers" from liberal churches and activist groups employ the same approach: They’re awash in scriptural references to justice, poverty and peace, stacked alongside claims about global warming, debt relief and the U.N. Security Council.

Christians are right to argue that the Bible is a priceless source of moral and spiritual insight. But they’re wrong to treat it as a substitute for a coherent political philosophy.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, a popular adviser to leading Democrats and an organizer of the Berkeley meeting, routinely engages in this kind of Bible-thumping. In his book "God’s Politics," Wallis insists that his faith-based platform transcends partisan categories.  "We affirm God’s vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," he writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality.

A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise — and a realization that politics can’t usher in the kingdom of heaven."

Perhaps the clueless Dems should try appealing to common sense, simple decency, universal human aspirations and progressive ideas rooted in the 21st century – they might be surprised by the success of this novel approach.

Update: A related "monkey see, monkey do" story here on the military, guns and abortion.

We tend to count war casualties mainly by the number of dead. Understandable – the dead are easy to count. Much more difficult to quantify is the damage done to the injured, maimed, psychologically scarred and brain damaged. Some recover enough to return to more or less normal lives but far too many don’t. With advances in medical science and med-vac operations on the battle field, many more of the injured are now living with disabilities that a few years ago would have killed a majority of them. This is a double edged sword. While the number of lives being saved has increased, so has the number living with life altering debilitation of body and mind. The affected are mostly very young who must adjust to living the rest of their lives with missing body parts and diminished minds.

A growing number of U.S. troops whose body armor helped them survive bomb and rocket attacks are suffering brain damage as a result of the blasts. It’s a type of injury some military doctors say has become the signature wound of the Iraq war.

Known as traumatic brain injury, or TBI, the wound is of the sort that many soldiers in previous wars never lived long enough to suffer. The explosions often cause brain damage similar to "shaken-baby syndrome," says Warren Lux, a neurologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

"You’ve got great body armor on, and you don’t die," says Louis French, a neuropsychologist at Walter Reed. "But there’s a whole other set of possible consequences. It’s sort of like when they started putting airbags in cars and started seeing all these orthopedic injuries."

Can you imagine President Bush on a visit with TBI victims, saying the following to the soldiers?

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself – not here at the hospital, but in combat with drugs and alcohol. I eventually won.  All that partying  gave me a little brain trauma. As a matter of fact, the psychiatrist asked if I needed counseling and detox when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, doc."

Sounds outrageous – like a tasteless SNL parody, right?  Yet the truth is not far removed from the above imaginary presidential pep-talk. George W. Bush, with his tin ear and "Bubble Boy" existence, does not comprehend the tragedy of shattered lives. The following is an excerpt from a recent column by Maureen Dowd  (can’t link to the NYT page).

"….. Confined with his wife and mother-in-law at the Crawford ranch, he (George Bush) spent his Christmas vacation mountain-biking and clearing brush.

He left the ranch for a brief visit at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he kidded in a way that again showed his jarring lack of empathy with the amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan:

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself – not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, colonel."

Murtha says he wouldn’t join military now

"A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, (Rep Jack) Murtha told ABC News’ "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party’s leading spokesmen on military issues.

"And I think you’re saying the average guy out there who’s considering recruitment is justified in saying ‘I don’t want to serve’," the interviewer continued.

"Exactly right," said Murtha……"

Congressman Tom DeLay cannot be a happy man right now. First, District Attorney Ronnie Earle got him mired in "inconsequential" issues of money laundering and campaign finance transgressions in Texas, which the Hammer pretends to shrug off as mere "partisan" politics. But now that the other big shoe has landed with a deafening thud in Washington, we haven’t heard much from the sharp tongued Congressman from my district of Sugar Land, Texas. Jack Abramoff, the uber – lobbyist, whose motto was to steal from citizens to give to himself and legislators, has decided to plead guilty to "fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress." Several Republican and a couple of Democratic congressmen are implicated in this Byzantine scandal of astounding corruption, greed and abuse of power. The big cahuna among the recipients of Abramoff’s largesse is DeLay.  Michael Scanlon (who is expected to sing like a canary) and Tony Rudy, two men intimately involved with the dirty dealings of Abramoff, were both previously working as top aides to Delay. They are widely suspected to have been the conduit between Abramoff’s firm and the hallowed lobbies of the US Congress and specifically, to DeLay.   

"The plea deal could have enormous legal and political consequences for the lawmakers on whom Abramoff lavished luxury trips, skybox fundraisers, campaign contributions, jobs for their spouses, and meals at Signatures, the lobbyist’s upscale restaurant……..

Another person under scrutiny, sources said, is DeLay, who is facing separate campaign finance charges in his home state of Texas.

"Tom DeLay is not concerned that Mr. Abramoff is cooperating," said Richard Cullen, his attorney. "He urges everyone involved to cooperate in the investigation and to tell the truth." Cullen had no comment on allegations involving former DeLay aides Rudy and Scanlon.

Among the trips under scrutiny is a golf excursion to Scotland that DeLay and aides took with Abramoff in 2000. DeLay has taken three overseas trips with Abramoff since 1997 — to the Mariana Islands, Russia and Scotland — and received more than $70,000 from Abramoff, his associates and tribal clients for his campaign committees.

Investigating DeLay could take up to a year and require the cooperation of other witnesses before issues surrounding the Texas Republican are resolved, according to people familiar with the case…"

There is nothing more predictable than falling out among thieves – when the going gets tough, the corrupt get to saving their own backsides. The fact that Abramoff was dressed in a spiffy but sinister Godfather like outfit for his guilty plea appearance before the judge, may have been a signal to his erstwhile clients that he was taking them down the same slippery slope that he finds himself on.  We have seen the movie … I can’t wait for the real life drama!

There is a very interesting post at Dadahead – More on "Fighting Dems" that is worth reading. After losing numerous elections, the Democrats are at their wit’s end. They desperately want to figure out how to connect with voters, especially on foreign policy and national security matters. While most polls show that Republicans and the President have taken a beating in the credibility /competence /honesty departments, the Democrats are not showing a corresponding gain. That is troubling because if the voters go to the polls with an attitude of "pox on both houses" and choose the devil they know, Republicans might win again in 2006 and 2008.

For reasons that elude me, Democrats are perceived by Americans as weak on defence and foreign policy and anti-military, although as I pointed out in one of my previous posts, "Masculinity, War & SUV’s", the Democratic side of the US Congress is populated by more combat hardy veterans than the  leadership of the Republican Party, consisting largely of strutting chicken hawks. Some have suggested that the Dems should field Iraqi war veterans in congressional races of 2006 in order to neutralize the Republican advantage on security and war matters. I don’t buy into this strategy and agree with Dadahead’s analysis of why this is unnecessary and even futile. A uniform alone, does not a winning candidate make. You have to have a coherent message on domestic and foreign issues and if that comes packaged in a shiny uniform, all the better. But let us remember what non-warrior Bush managed to do to decorated vets like John McCain and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Dadahead says that one of his (her? I am a new reader, who is Dadahead?) fears is that fielding  soldiers on Democratic tickets will keep the focus on Iraq and national security (a strong point for the GOP) and not on domestic issues like health care, education and social security – areas where the Dems are more trusted. I believe it doesn’t necessarily have to be an either/or choice. The Democrats should focus on bread and butter issues but must not become evasive or defensive on Iraq.  They should hammer home how wrong headed, wasteful and criminal this misadventure was and how much it has set back domestic progress and reconstruction efforts (for example, Katrina, FEMA, Homeland Security). In fact the Democrats should not let the voters forget about Iraq for a minute and we don’t need soldiers to drive home the point. We need articulate and fearless truth tellers on Democratic tickets. Military credentials are ancillary to the ability of candidates to focus unflinchingly on the Republicans’ hypocrisy, cowardice and corruption in Iraq and at home.