The Naderites who claim that there are no significant differences between the two major political parties need to pull their heads out from under the sand every now and then and take a look at what is actually going on. Contrary to the rhetoric of third-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats are presenting the American public with stark choices in virtually every realm of political discourse. Whether it is foreign, economic or social policy, finding people on the left who disagree with President Bush's stances is not difficult. What is difficult, however, is trying to get these critics to come up with a positive agenda for America's future.
Month after month it becomes more and more obvious that the American left continues to dwell in a pre-Sept. 11 world. Democrats in particular -- and the left in general -- are stuck in the mire of triviality and name-calling that typified the politics of the 1990s. Back then it didn't seem as if politicians would have to make tough foreign policy decisions ever again, and that the vacation from history during the Clinton years would continue well into the 21st century. The actions of 19 highjackers turned this dream into a fairy tale. Now our country faces serious problems and difficult choices, and the left is scrambling trying to find a spot at the grownups' table.
The major underlying thread in liberal America -- a force that includes most college campuses -- is a common personal disdain for the president. To around 15 or 20 percent of the country, Bush will never be a legitimate president, and not simply because of the controversy surrounding his election. Many liberals will never accept any president who they deem to be intellectually inferior to them, and the only thing that infuriates them more than Bush's clear and tough rhetoric is the fact that the vast majority of Americans seem to approve of it. Liberals' personal hatred of the president leads many of them to adopt a perverse disapproval of America as a whole. This explains why many of them sided with France in the United Nations debate and continue to nitpick every trivial detail of the hugely successful war in Iraq.
It would be wrong to begrudge anyone their right to disagree with our president on matters of foreign policy or even national security. However, the definition of criticism has now become so broad that it no longer necessitates even the pretense of proposing an alternative to the idea being criticized. The best argument I have heard a liberal make on a foreign policy issue in the last year and a half has been, "No." Liberals have struggled mightily to come up with original ways of dealing with terrorism, with Iraq and with our economy. The president's ideas on these issues have the approval of most Americans. Even on the issue of the sputtering economy, a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken May 6-7 shows that more Americans trust Republicans on taxes and the economy than Democrats. This would be politically inexplicable if Democrats were offering a credible way to help the economy, but as we saw in the 2002 midterm election, the American public has little use for a party with no ideas. Juxtapose 2002 with 1994, when the Republicans took back the House and Senate in the middle of Clinton's first term by offering America a clear and long list of policy proposals. The Republicans won that year without the bully pulpit because they brought ideas to the table.
The same poll I cited above shows that 58 percent of Americans are optimistic about the economy, up from just 40 percent in February. Herein lies Bush's popularity. The president's belief that allowing people to keep more of their money will strengthen the economy endears him to the public. Bush's agenda for America's economy is just as clear as his agenda for fighting terrorism. The president is counting on an optimistic, perhaps even rosy, picture of the spread of democracy in the Middle East and a simultaneous eradication of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It is surely a difficult task, but thanks to President Bush it is one we approach with self-assurance.
I still hope we can have meaningful debate in this country. We did not have a serious one about the war in Iraq because the political opponents of the president either agreed with his policy or were too afraid to challenge him. After publishing a column recently during the Iraq war, I received a blitz response from a Dartmouth senior who not only wrongly predicted Vietnam-like casualties in the war but also insisted to me that the president should be jailed for war crimes. Should any of us take people like this seriously? Americans want to feel good about their president and their country. Until liberals realize this and stop calling America the bad guy, they will continue to be throttled in the national debates and the national elections.
