I started reading
The Democrats’ Real Problem by Bush critic E.J. Dionne with a sense of anticipation. Maybe, thought I, he could solve the paradox of the angry left. Alas, the piece doesn't deliver on its title, and just deposits the reader back at square one.
The Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show that their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward an alternative program.
Okay, in other words, they need to get off of angry. But anger is not only the central concept of modern anti-Bush lefties -- it has become an essential attribute that cannot be removed without destroying its host.
This failure has made it easier for Republicans to cast anti-Bush feeling (aka, ``Bush hatred'') as a psychological disorder. The GOP shrewdly makes the president's critics look crazed and suggests that opposition to Bush is of no more significance than, say, the loathing that many watchers of ``American Idol'' love to express toward Simon Cowell, the meanest of the show's judges.
With Gore yelling, Dean screaming, Kennedy blathering, and Hillary shrieking, who needs the GOP to make the president’s critics look crazed? The American People can diagnose each disorder by symptoms presented. But I guess if you’re crazed, marveling at The Scream amounts to dirty trickery on a par with forcing Dukakis into that tank with the big helmet on. Or making Kerry crawl around in that powder blue bunny suit. That Rove! He's behind it all.
The president's critics need to identify precisely why they oppose him, not only so they can make clear that they are not psycho basket cases, but also to convey that they know what needs to be put right.
But that gets right back to not having any ideas, doesn’t it? Dionne's conclusion that fighting bad policies can be constructive is fine, but in practice the Democrats' oppositionism is perceived as both reflexive and transparently calculated for political effect.
