Why Democrats Are Irrelevant

There is a common thread through most of the intellectual discussions and writings going on in America today. Democrats are irrelevant in any way but their political power to obstruct. Start with the current discussion of the American courts and their role in society. The book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," by Mark R. Levin is a nationwide bestseller. In the past best selling books have always been lauded by democrats as proof that their ideas were superior. However that was back when their books with liberal themes were the best sellers.

In Charles Lane's review "Conservative's Book on Supreme Court Is a Bestseller", Lane quotes a leading liberal lawyer Mark Tushnet on Levin's book. "Tushnet said he has not read Men in Black and does not know anyone who has". This is not surprising, because democrats are proponents of the concept of "political correctness", the doctrine which says you cannot even acknowledge or discuss ideas that are not accepted as "liberal". Tushnet's own book on the courts has been reviewed on all the main stream media, while Levin's has been ignored. But Tushnet's book has sold minimal copies and Levin's is a best seller. However Tushnet won't read it. This says as much as anything about the growing irrelevance of democrats in America's intellectual discussions on governance.

The major intellectual discussion today is between conservatives and neo-conservatives, two factions in the Republican party. Patrick Buchanan, a conservative, has written an intriguing article on George Bush's shortcomings, and the shortcomings of the neo-conservative movement, entitled, "A Republic, Not a Democracy". Buchanan has some solid criticism of the risks of Bush's efforts in the middle east and the long term implications for his policies. This is an important dialog. However liberals are on the sidelines in this critical discussion, as "political correctness" dictates they cannot even argue the issues being discussed. Instead they simply decry that anyone would consider either position and condemn the discussion.

This obstructionist attitude is blatantly displayed in the democrat opposition to Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading proponents of neo-conservative thought. Democrats simply attack Wolfowitz no matter what. The liberal position is noted in Stephen Hayes' article "Crying Wolfowitz". He quotes democrat Al Kamen.

On March 2, 2005, Al Kamen, who writes the scoop-heavy "Inside the Loop" column in the Washington Post, addressed the "rumors" and "news reports" that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz would soon be put forward by George W. Bush as president of the World Bank. "No way that was going to happen," Kamen wrote. "(The notion was too much even for this column.)"

And yet, as Hayes noted, that is exactly what George Bush did two weeks later. What Hayes goes on to describe is the admiration and adolation that Wolfowitz is receiving from leading democracy advocates in the middle east.

According to several people at the service, a throng of Lebanese Christians (and some Muslims) gathered around Wolfowitz to thank him for pushing reform in the Middle East. The scene caused Farid Abboud, the Syrian-backed Lebanese ambassador to the United States, to mutter, "Who does he think he is, the patriarch?"

Wolfowitz advocates "the U.S. vision of liberal democracy and free-market economics tak(ing) root around the world." Liberal Joe Biden acknowledges that Wolfowitz is considered a leading intellectual on international affairs and is a "solid" individual. How can advocating our form of government not be something at least worth discussing? In the "politically correct" world of most democrats, this is unacceptable and must be obstructed.

The closest democrats come to being relevant in current discussions is when the issue of politics comes up. They are still master politicians. When the issue is political posturing, there are still relevant points to make. In John Leo's article in the liberal "U.S. News and World Report", "Double-standard trouble" the double standards of both democrats and conservatives are addressed. What is surprising is when the article makes the following point.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his Roper dissent, tossed a grenade at the (liberal) American Psychological Association on grounds of double standards. In an abortion case before the Supreme Court in 1990, the APA said a "rich body of research" showed that by age 14 or 15 people are mature enough to choose abortion because they have "abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas." But the APA's certitude of the strong moral grasp of young teens apparently evaporated just in time for Roper, in which it told the court that minors just aren't mature enough to be eligible for the maximum penalty faced by adult killers.

I cannot remember when a MSM organization like the "U.S. News" would even acknowledge points that attacked a democrat position. In the past there would have been no balance in the article and it would have ended with an example of conservative inconsistency. However this article actually ends with criticism of the democrat position of attacking John Ashcroft while still embracing Castro, including acceptance of his incarceration of librarians in Cuba.

The (American) librarians' silence has to do with the lingering romantic attachment of the American left to communism in general and Fidel Castro in particular.

This silence is a perfect example of the "political correctness" doctrine. It is also an reminder that the "political correct" message is created by people who are America hating socialists. "Political correctness" has ended the democrats participation in the discussions that are important and thus made them irrelevant, by silencing them.

This may be the reason that Martin Peretz, editor of the major liberal magazine "The New Republic" wrote the following in his despairing editorial, "Losing our Delusions".

Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really.

The intolerance of "political correctness" has reduced the democrats ability to participate in the nation's dialog so far that even democrats are starting to note the effect. Democrats are simply irrelevant in any important way to the intellectual discussions that are shaping our nation and our world.

In their attempt to silence their opponents, they have silenced their own supporters.