Democratic Decline

D Is for Descendancy
The Democrats are no longer the majority party.
Is this the year they'll finally admit it?
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Democratic Party is in descendancy. It's not just that John Kerry's campaign is sinking like a stone, or that George W. Bush is turning out to be a resilient politician. The Democratic leadership is in electoral denial, failing to grasp a profound shift among American voters and therefore on the cusp not of winning back control of one of the branches of government, but of handing control over to Republicans for a generation or more.
This denial has been fed by moderate electoral victories, most notably Bill Clinton's eight year control of the White House, Al Gore's popular-vote plurality in 2000, and what turned out to be transient congressional gains in 1996, 1998 and 2000. Democrats still seem to believe they can win back the White House without making any significant modification to their party's policies--that they are the natural majority party just waiting to be given back control.
A broader look, however, reveals a much different electoral landscape. Somewhere during the Carter presidency Americans lost confidence in the ideas of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton ran and won as a "third way" Democrat in 1992, when it seemed safe not to worry about foreign threats. When he took office, he tried to move the country to the left, raising taxes and rolling out a plan to socialize medicine.
The flaw in Mr. Clinton's belief that the country was ready to swing left again was revealed in the congressional elections two years into his presidency. For the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was president, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Two years later Mr. Clinton signed the most comprehensive welfare reform legislation since the New Deal. Al Gore might have walked away with the presidency in 2000 if he'd learned the same lesson from 1994 that Mr. Clinton apparently did--that liberal ideas are a loser at the ballot box.
Republicans have been in the White House for 16 of the past 24 years, held a Senate majority for 14 of those years and controlled the House for the past 10 years. GOP candidates aren't winning elections by luck. The Democrats had their "Great Society" and stayed in power by handing out welfare checks. It took a long time, but Republicans discovered something more valuable to hand out, a form of personal liberty that allows individuals to create real wealth. On self-interested grounds alone, health savings accounts and private Social Security accounts are an electoral inevitability.
After 9/11, a vigorous national defense that included a string of liberation wars was inevitable too. In the sweep of history, liberty trumps command and control. And despite the pounding President Bush took in the polls before the Democratic Convention, there's little evidence that Americans are growing disillusioned with the ideas on the right.
That's not to say this year's election isn't important or itself a historical watershed. It's the first presidential election after two wars of liberation and the first after the 9/11 attacks, and is therefore a referendum on national-security policy. But it's important for another reason too. Today it is Democrats and liberals who are, in William F. Buckley's phrase, standing athwart history yelling "stop." How successful they are in delaying the spread of personal liberty at home and abroad depends on the outcome of this election.
With that much riding on this election, we can expect a few surprises and even a dirty trick or two somewhere in the seven weeks left before Nov. 2. Many expect Mr. Kerry to surprise us with a strong performance in the presidential debates--and he may do that. But there are a few other cards left for him to play, albeit not very good ones. One is to speculate who wouldn't be in a second-term Bush cabinet. Democrats would love for Donald Rumsfeld to be thrown over the side in a repudiation of Mr. Bush's military achievements. But an even bigger dream come true for Democrats would be Colin Powell's retirement. He's a man of great stature who has softened the president's image.
Democrats could also surprise voters with a few personnel and policy announcements of their own. If Mr. Kerry continues to trail in the polls on national security, look for him to name a known hawk as his pick for secretary of defense. Mr. Kerry could also find a religious conservative he could "work" with in his cabinet. Mr. Kerry might also look for a way to come out of the box swinging on a high-profile issue. The problem here is that his flip-flops on the war and many other issues make it nearly impossible for him to make a bold stand now.
Don't discount Mr. Bush either. There are plenty of surprises left up his sleeve. Some come from just making the everyday decisions that presidents have to make. Fallujah and a handful of other Iraqi cities remain terrorist havens. Allowing a large scale military operation to go forward before Nov. 2 would show Mr. Bush to be willing to risk his own electoral prospects for the sake of the right policy in Iraq. Ironically, it would probably also boost Republican turnout. Mr. Bush also could veto one of the many spending bills Congress is now busy cobbling together. Vetoing just about anything would likely give hesitant Bush supporters a reason to turn out for the president.
Whatever surprises are in store, the broader sweep is clear. In a time of economic prosperity the electorate was nearly deadlocked over two candidates four years ago, but for more than two decades it has proved decidedly in favor of the ideas emanating from the right. After the election Democrats may blame Mr. Kerry for running an inept campaign, as they did Michael Dukakis and Al Gore. But to do so would be to fail to grasp why for the duration of the campaign the party was counting on the economy to stumble, the war to go badly or for a terrorists attack to turn public opinion against the president. Or why with less than two months from Election Day, the party's only remaining hope for victory was for Mr. Bush to stumble.

Read more!

Welcome to the Epler Effect

Epler Effect
by William Epler

Hello and welcome to the Effect. I wanted to write this column to introduce myself and my site, and show you where I stand on the issues. I was not into politics and world news until recently. I served in Iraq with Bravo Battery 5th Battalion 3rd Artillery. We fell under 17th Brigade based out of Ft. Sill, OK. While stationed in Iraq, we served under 4th Infantry Division just North of Baghdad. In that time our unit guarded the largest ammunition holding area in the Middle East. We conducted patrols, checkpoints, and other operations. The local Iraqis were very grateful and helpful to our effort. I will write in greater detail on my experience in Iraq perhaps at a later time.
Before Iraq I had been stationed in South Korea. I have been to the DMZ and seen North Korea's propaganda. While there I watched the 9-11 attacks on television. It was late at night there and I saw the second plane hit live. It was a moment I will never forget, and I knew the world had just been changed drastically. I had just reenlisted and knew I would be fighting for my country sometime soon, and I was very proud to be a soldier.
My wife and two children asked me to stay home after my return from Iraq. So I reluctantly allowed my active duty service to end. I still feel guilt for leaving Iraq before the job was done. I knew, however, my guilt would be greater if I left my family again. My wife needed me too, and my country allowed me to go home to her. I work in security now, perhaps out of a personal need to help and protect others.
I have never been interested in politics. I especially never saw myself trying to start into journalism and create an online news resource. Up until my tour of duty in Iraq I would have identified myself as a liberal leaning moderate. I was an eco-fanatic, hated the rich, and in school I was anti-war. Ironic that I would later join the Army and fight in Iraq. Experience and maturity tempered my fanatic views. Becoming the head of a household and leader of soldiers made me wiser. It was when I returned from Iraq that pushed me to become involved in politics. I saw CNN reporting the war in a very negatively distorted way. There was no balance and nothing was put in context. Then there was the irresponsible reporting of the Abu-Ghraib prison scandal. The media continually, but subtly, disrespected our troops and continues to do so.
I am always prepared to see both sides of every story. I enjoy heated, intelligent debate and challenge anyone to discuss the issues. Many of my views are centrist, but I am increasingly conservative as I age and wisen. There will be no simple-minded rhetoric on my site, only facts and insightful commentary. Do not be afraid to speak up if you disagree. I post various articles from several sources on this blog, and while I agree with many of them I do not neccessarily agree with all of them. I only post things that are interesting and have something useful to say. I will try to write my own articles more often, but as it is I am often pressed for time.
Enjoy this blog while you can. In the near future I plan to create a much more substantial website with more features. It will be called the EplerEffect.com, but I am only in the early stages of talks with a designer.
I hope you enjoy reading the many fine articles and editorials on this blog and I encourage you to visit the sources and feel free to click on the many links throughout the posts. I am recruiting guest columnists, and would be delighted to accept a piece from anyone. Just Email your column to SGT_W_E@yahoo.com and I will review and consider it for publication. The only criteria I will enforce is that it has to be relevant and factual. In no way do you have to agree with my views, that would be boring. Thank you for visiting, I hope I can become a favorite stop when you are browsing the internet. Remember, my opinion and yours is worthless if it differs from the facts.

Read more!