A Brief Examination of Democratic Party Cowardice

I don’t want to devote a lot of thought to the matter. I know it annoys me terribly every time I hear about the Democrats apologizing, backing down or (at this point) even trying to accommodate their political rivals.

Recent stories of their inability to stop the war or pass healthcare initiatives, rebuking a liberal political organization for an “inappropriate” newspaper advertisement and an apology for speaking out strongly about Bush and his war in Iraq (see video) should give context to what my complaints are all about.

I don’t want to psychoanalyze the Democratic Party. While not a member, I still feel an affinity for their general politics and, in particular at this time in our history, think they are the best hope we have for inserting rational thinking in to American politics. That’s a sad thought, but likely a correct one. So I simply want to make an observation of one of the reasons they are so weak when matched against their adversary.

For at least 30 years, the Democratic Party has spent an inordinate amount of time codifying some incredibly silly legislation in the name of decency and fairness. Instead of focusing on key issues of peace, fair economic prosperity, basic human rights, healthcare, etc. they legislate about a group of issues that I will lump under “political correctness”. They have people worrying about men complimenting women on their dresses, the use of Native American (and other cultures) names and mascots for sports teams, racial and ethnic slurs and nicknames that are spoken in any context, and you know the list goes on and on.

They do so with good intentions, but there are two negative results. They waste precious legislative capital and they paint themselves into a corner.

I won’t get into the first problem and will simply say that they could have been spending their time as law-makers on much more relevant issues.

The second problem of painting themselves into a corner is what I want to focus on briefly. When you are so concerned about curtailing speech to fit a pattern of acceptability, then it can be used against you as well. If we must be so concerned about “feelings” and appearance of “inclusiveness,” then when you speak out forcefully the other side will turn it on you. “How dare you not censure Moveon.org for besmirching an American general? Is it because you are not patriotic? Do you not love the men and women in uniform? Can’t you appreciate the sacrifice of a man who has devoted his entire life to the military? What kind of thoughtless, uncaring person must you be not to support this censure?”

The Republicans have the Democrats by the balls and will have their way until the Democrats grab them right back in the sack. Don’t fear free speech. Use it to articulate what is right. When it’s used in a negative way, people are smart enough to judge it for what it is.

The adversary doesn’t care about these niceties of speech. So when Rush Limbaugh, talking about military personnel who disagree with the war, calls them “phony soldiers” and the Democrats demand an apology from Republicans, they laugh in their faces. Censure Rush? Hell no. We’ll give him the Medal of Freedom! Can anyone seriously imagine a Republican apologizing like Pete Stark did, given a similar situation?

Here’s what Stark originally said:



Here’s how Democrats respond to attacks. (Make no mistake. This is not just about Pete Stark):



For those in the atheist community, here’s an extra heartbreaker for you. You may have heard that there was ONE member of Congress who responded to a poll about “belief” by saying that he had none. Pete is our guy.