Friday, April 26, 2024
Writing Common Sense to Power
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
Howie and Newt

FEBRUARY 6, 2005 --

February 12 is not only the day "The Gates," by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, will be unfurled in Central Park. It is also the day the Democratic National Committee elects its new chairperson.

One week before the DNC action, it looks as if Howard Dean will succeed Terry McAuliffe to lead the DNC. How(ie)
about that?

The former Vermont governor and exuberant presidential candidate seems to have been on the upswing since LPR first carried his photo, last July, and called on Dr. Dean to run for mayor of New York
City.

LPR, of course, claims no credit for the Dean upsurge.

To Republicans elated that Dean will head the DNC, LPR cites the old caveat, beware that you get what you ask for.

LPR expects that Dean will energize voters beyond the Democratic base and move to the sidelines the sore-losers whose political articulation is based
on two conclusions: conservatives are liars and dummies.

(The new Republican National Committee
chairman, incidentally, is Ken Mehlman.)


Now what about Newt Gingrich?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has come out with a new book -- "Winning the Future - A 21st Century Contract With America."

Michiko Kakutanii wasted no time to
pummel it in her February 1 New York Times review, which began: "In his sloppy, poorly reasoned new book...."

Ms. Kakutani dismisses Gingrich's complaint -- that liberals are still winning -- as reflecting a 1980s-90s attitude. Yet, she refers to "'Mr. Gingrich's reputation as a polarizing bomb-thrower" without citing the source of this viewpoint.

This kind of thing might be termed "substitution of attention - grabbing assertions for thoughtful analysis."

(Liberals do that a lot when talking about
Republicans.)

This passage is taken from Ms.
Kakutani's review - attack on Mr. Gingrich. The left, of late, generally defines itself by the terms it employs against its perceived enemies.

Apparently the Times reviewer is not persuaded by this statement from the Gingrich book: "Since the 1960's,
the conservative majority has been intimidated, manipulated and bullied by the liberal minority." Of course it has.

Who should know better than Newt - who was, himself, "intimidated, manipulated and bullied by the liberal minority"?

As a historian he should have taken better note of Machiavelli's reminder that when a challenger to power comes on the scene, his likely allies will hold back till they are confident he will prevail.

Newt got hammered by the left and its media megaphones right after the Republican congressional victory, November 8, 1994 -- and he let them bedevil him right out of the speakership, which, according to a Robert Novak column of the period, they intended to do soon after he became speaker.

 
The new chairperson of the Democratic National Committee?

The amazing thing is, Republican political ineptness has yet to bring Democrats back to congressional power.

The anti-Newt mean-spiritedness continues. Hanna Rosin, in The Washington Post, January 30 opened her
attack with this description of Mr. Gingrich: "… see that familiar double-wide head, the white cap of hair, the loopy grin."

The sad thing is, Newt probably doesn't know how to deal in public with the venom of the left, even now.

And so, not effectively standing up for himself, he did not encourage his allies to
have confidence that he could stand up for them.

Here is some advice for conservatives: in dealing with liberals ALWAYS be on guard -- ALWAYS assume the worst of their intentions. And, above all, LISTEN to the words they use when they attack you -- by those words they are describing themselves.

In February or March 1995, this writer could no longer bear the failure of Republicans to respond to the demagoguery of the Democrats.

A call was made to the speaker's office, with the voice at the other end of the line explaining that the office was too busy
working on the Contract With America to respond to the Democrats. A call was then made to the Republican National Committee, with the voice at the other end of the line explaining that the RNC lacks the funds to answer the Democrats.

Moral: Failure to respond to demagoguery is a sign of being intimidated and being intimidated is not the way to defeat demagogues.

Conclusion: The country continues to be closely divided, politically, because Republicans have yet to defeat the demagoguery of the left, and that demagoguery prevents Democrats from winning greater support.