We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By Tom Elia & David Rogers
July 28, 2004
The New Editor
(Versions of this column originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the
Manchester Union-Leader.)
One of us was sitting in his favorite Austin bar near the University of Texas the day
President Reagan died. A group in their 20's and 30's came in, fists pumping in the air --
like they were at a ballgame -- shouting, "Reagan's dead! Reagan's dead!" with an
enthusiasm one would expect to be reserved for the demise of Hitler.
The Sandbox Left strikes again.
Some don't think the Sandbox Left matters -- that they are a tiny fringe element that no one
listens to and that has no influence.
We respectfully disagree with that assertion.
The "Sandbox Left" not only describes the immature rantings of leftist radicals like Michael
Moore and Noam Chomsky, but many of the "mainstream" leaders of the Democratic Party
as well. The recent use of irresponsibly demagogic rhetoric, we believe, is evidence that the
Democratic Party's leadership views this "fringe" group as sizable enough to court -- and
they're actively playing to it.
Let's examine some recent statements from prominent Democrats:
Former Vice-President and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore recently called
some of his critics "digital Brownshirts" and also referred to "Bush's Gulag" when
discussing Abu Graib prison in his two most recent speeches.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) too referred to Abu Graib, saying, "Saddam's torture
chambers reopened under new management -- US management." This came after Kennedy
called the war in Iraq a "fraud" conceived in Texas, and accused President Bush of
"bribery" in order to secure the support of foreign leaders.
Former Vermont Governor and leading Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean
seemed to endorse radical left wing conspiracy theories on National Public Radio when he
said there was "an interesting theory" that the President was told about the Sept. 11 attacks
in advance by the Saudi Arabian government.
After viewing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," National Democratic Chairman Terry
MacAuliffe was asked by National Review Online if he believed Moore's assertion that the
war in Afghanistan was fought -- not in an effort to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda --
but to assure that the Unocal Corporation could build a natural gas pipeline across
Afghanistan for the financial benefit of Vice President Dick Cheney. McAuliffe answered, "I
believe it after seeing that."
In an op-ed piece in the Charleston Post and Courier, Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) openly
hinted around the edges that the war in Iraq was part of a Jewish conspiracy. "With Iraq no
threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure
Israel," Hollings wrote. "Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for
years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security
is to spread democracy in the area." (We would like to respectfully dispense a piece of
political advice to Sen. Hollings: When one is called "Fritz," it might behoove one to refrain
from espousing Jewish conspiracy theories -- but maybe that's just us.)
Sadly, this national phenomenon also exists at some local and state levels as well. In Texas
state politics, the press spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party called a Supreme Court
Justice a "Nazi" and the state party chair later refused to repudiate the comment.
These examples are emblematic of the Democratic Party's leadership in 2004.
Playing to a crowd that swallows this rhetoric is not healthy for the Democratic Party in the
long-term -- nor is it good for America.
In isolated liberal enclaves, it may be possible to engage in this irresponsible behavior
without consequences. In Texas -- where the Democratic Party is 0-for-29 in statewide
offices -- and the larger United States, it is not.
Demagoguery of this kind may comfort hard-core radicals that are a part of the Democratic
base, and it may allow the party to remain in control of towns like Austin, Ann Arbor, and
Berkeley, but in the long term, it will keep the party trapped in a hopeless minority. Rhetoric
of this type is so irresponsible that nothing the Democrats do will allow them to become a
majority -- while people who engage in such speech are the public face of their party.
There was a time when the Republicans had a similar problem with irresponsible people on
the right-wing being the face of their party -- John Birchers, isolationists, and old-fashioned
racists. But responsible Republicans and leading conservatives like William F. Buckley ran
those people out of the party and the movement.
There are a few Sandbox dwellers left on the Right, but the fringe Right is tiny and
powerless compared with the Sandbox Left, which is neither.
Today, the Democratic Party must follow the lead of William F. Buckley. For the good of
their party -- and the country -- they must remove consideration of the Sandbox Left from
their political calculations, and demand that their side grow up and abandon ridiculous
conspiracy theories and irresponsible historical comparisons.
The process will be painful and time-consuming. But if they don't engage, Democrats (and
real, responsible liberals) are heading for a very long dry spell -- not unlike the one the GOP
endured after Herbert Hoover's administration -- led by those selling the rhetorical equivalent
of shiny silver pails and big yellow rubber spoons.
Tom Elia and David Rogers are contributing editors to The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers