Real Kato Blog: Responding to Republican Snide Remarks

A brother of a friend of mine, upon reading the Democratic party platform, made a snide comment about it. He was probably just trying to be funny and raise my friend's ire, but I had to respond.

The snide Republican comment about the Democrats' slogan, "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World":

"Democrats are 'strong at home' with the Liberal Press, Broadcasting stations and special interest groups, they are 'respected in the world' for their pacifist appeasement and lack of moral leadership."

My response:

It is the Democratic party who is pushing for unity and the pursuit of common goals, like good jobs, affordable health care, clean air and water, safe streets, and good schools. That's what "strong at home" means. Republicans would rather bicker over gay marriage and flag burning and anything that might serve as a wedge between one person and the next, and distract us from genuine problems that really affect our lives. The more divisive the issue, the more likely Republicans are to talk about it.

As for the media, it is what it is: a service that packages information we want to see. We want to know when our government makes mistakes or tries to deceive us; it is a principal tenet of democracy that we should keep tabs on our elected officials, and criticize them when we believe they're doing wrong. The so-called "liberal" media shredded President Clinton for his escapades, but failed us at a critical time by not questioning the war in Iraq. Now, when the media reports abuses of Iraqi prisoners, or the results of a bipartisan 9/11 commission, is it "liberal" to want to hear about it? Or just American?

"Pacifist appeasement" is an interesting phrase. You use it as if it were a slur, as if it were bad to work for peace, as if it were bad to want cooperation with our allies. I suppose the alternative, "violent confrontation", is preferable, when dealing with France and Germany and Canada?

"Moral leadership"? Is that what we're getting from the current administration? So then, it's moral to invade another country on the pretext of an imagined imminent threat. It's moral to strip people of their rights to legal justice, simply by labeling them "enemy combatants". It's moral to sexually humiliate prisoners and break the Geneva convention. It's moral to act unilaterally with no consideration for international cooperation. It's moral to back out of the ABM treaty that we signed. It's moral to avoid curbing pollution by opposing the Kyoto protocol. It's moral to try to hide our mistakes by opposing the creation of the 9/11 commission, or by trying to make its proceedings secret. It's moral to shower the wealthy with tax cuts, and make our children and grandchildren foot the bill for our record budget deficits. This is the moral leadership that Bush is giving us. The Democratic candidates offer us: strength through domestic unity and international cooperation, respect for all human rights, and honesty from our leaders. Sorry, the Bush administration cannot claim any sort of moral high ground. Not any more.

If Republicans care to talk about real issues in a meaningful way, then I'd like to listen. But if all they can do is wrap themselves in a flag, pretend that they're the only ones who want what's best for the country, and spout the same old rhetoric, then it's all just a bunch of hot air.

Permalink