And Another Thing

One of the issues underlying the controversy over Rove's comments is the role of intentions and feelings in politics. For many liberals/Democrats it seems that how you feel about something and the desire to do the enlightened thing trump actual policy arguments over means and ends. For example, to be opposed to affirmative action is to be a racist, and to be opposed to homosexual marriage is to be a "homophobe". Being devoted to "diversity" and "tolerance" seems to trump concern for the consequences or potential consequences of the implementation of these policies. So, it follows that to assert that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is to question their patriotism. This is absurd. Politics is ultimately a practical endeavor concerned primarily with ends and means. Rove's assertion in his recent speech that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is not an accusation of being unpatriotic. Rather, it is an assertion that the defense policies to which they subscribe are less sufficient than conservative/Republican defense policies. This is a substantive criticism that needs to be answered, not shouted down with breathless charges of "He's questioning MY PATRIOTISM!!!!!!!!!!!" Of course, that would mean taking an honest look at the liberal/Democratic view of how best to ensure national security (something Peter Beinart of The New Republic has tried to do), but that requires a willingness to step back from the fray and sacrifice the short term benefits of a united front for the uncertain long-term benefit of a revived intellectual foundation.

Ultimately, the Democrats need to get away from concentrating on good intentions and right gestures as a policy guide and focus on good results. If they don't, they will continue to marginalize themselves even if they regain power at somepoint in the future. For an example of why this is so, see Mark Steyn's piece in this week's Spectator.