Jonathan Chait, a TNR senior editor, and vicious Bush-basher, contributed a crafty op-ed to the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 19, suggesting that the National Endowment for the Arts be abolished. Chait's idea is a small one, on a par with Clinton's school uniform jazz in the 1990s, but at least it's a start for the Democratic party to face current political reality. Granted, the piece is larded with cynicism, but as opposed to the Times' Maureen Dowd, who simply rants about GOP "Visigoths" and the end of democracy as we know it in the United States, Chait is idealistic enough to believe that a retooled liberalism can attract enough voters to win the 2006 and 2008 elections.
He begins: "After discovering that 59 million Americans voted to reelect a demonstrably failed president largely because he related to their culture and values, Democrats spent about a week desperately casting about for some social issue to chuck overboard so they could get right with middle America. Alas, after running through the usual list, they decided that they weren't prepared to abandon abortion or gay rights and had all but given up on gun control anyway, so there wasn't much they could do."
Ignore Chait's tired trope about "values" winning the election for Bushhis 60 million votes didn't come exclusively from "middle America," and if the Democrats remain on their high donkey, don't be surprised to see New Jersey elect a Republican governor next year and become a 2008 "battleground" state againand focus on his sensible proposal to ditch the NEA, which is ludicrously funded by the federal government. I agree with Chait: Andres Serrano's photo of a crucifix soiled by urine didn't offend me, but why should taxpayers help pick up the tab?
Chait also notes that Bush's administration actually increased the NEA's budget, which should've caused a bigger stink among economic conservatives, a fact that's lost on most liberals. He continues: "[A]rts subsidies aren't much different than farm subsidies. The main difference, other than scale, is that arts subsidies go to a constituency that Democrats can afford tono, make that desperately need tooffend."
Very logical. Chait doesn't consider that scrapping the NEA would also appeal to Republicans, and would be at least a token gesture of reducing Bush's profligate domestic spending in his first term, but he's right that pissing off, so to speak, rich, liberal art hags is smart politics. After all, those society matrons, wealthy financiers and celebrities who champion Karen Finley aren't about to vote for the Republican candidate four years from now.
In contrast, the American Prospect's executive editor, Michael Tomasky, is still in denial. The former New York magazine columnist (where his intelligent commentary is missed) took the opportunity on Nov. 22 to complain about the admittedly aggressive recent actions of the GOP-controlled Congress. One can agree that Tom DeLay's recent maneuver to protect himself if he's indicted is sleazy, but if in fact the Texan faces criminal charges, he'll be moved out of the Majority Leader's chair in a flash. Tomasky argues "[N]o Congressional party has governed like this in modern American history, because today's Republicans are less interested in the will of the people than in awarding their large contributors and pursuing their ideological crusades."
Lay off the sour grapes, Mike. No one was forced to vote for congressional Republicans earlier this month, and if the "ideological crusades" are unpopular, many GOP leaders will be sent packing in 2006, even those in safe gerrymandered districts. Tomasky was further annoyed that "not a single Republican bothered to show up on the Senate floor during the floor speeches bidding adieu to Tom Daschle, who gave a quarter-century of his life to the body." So what? Daschle was a divisive Democratic leader and I'm sure he got plenty of bear hugs from his real friends, and probably would've been ticked off if his opponents shed crocodile tears for the evening news on the occasion of his departure.
In retrospect, John Kerry could have picked off hundreds of thousands of votesmaybe in Ohio!from lukewarm Bush supporters if he'd demanded, perhaps at his Boston convention, that Kofi Annan resign as secretary general of the United Nations. It's not a hard case to make, given the corruption Annan has shoved under the Persian rug in his well-appointed digs, but Kerry, afraid of alienating the world community, kept mum. So did Bush, for that matter, but he already had the upper hand on foreign policy. A smart Kerry adviser would've counseled the candidate to angrily tell his far-left supporters to leave the "No Blood for Oil!" posters at home and replace them with the words "No Food for Oil."
The Wall Street Journal's Claudia Rosett has been dogged on this issue, calling the scandal (Nov. 17) "the biggest fraud in the history of humanitarian relief," and it's only now that attention is being paid to the hearings led by GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and Rep. Henry Hyde, that will likely, even at a glacial pace, cause Annan to retire in disgrace before his term is up. His departure can't come too soon: As the Chicago Tribune editorialized on Nov. 21, Annan was quick to call the U.S. invasion of Iraq "illegal," and condemn the assault on Fallujah, but on the subject of Saddam Hussein funneling billions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid but instead diverted to his military and construction of palaces, the U.N. leader, who increasingly makes Al Sharpton look virtuous, looked the other way.
Michelle Cottle, also of the New Republic, is not an especially gifted writershe can't spin out the populist lyricism that's made consultant Bob Shrum a very wealthy manbut like Chait, she's a realist. Cottle's Nov. 19 online article was a jug of castor oil for heartbroken Democrats, not only calling Kerry a "piss-poor candidate" but also begging fellow liberals to simply forget about nominating Hillary Clinton in 2008. Hillary's conned Washingtonians like Cottle, who patronizingly says that "the political class" realize that New York's senator has "grown" and is "a moderate legislator," but "it will be much tougher to convince Middle America."
Nevertheless, despite Cottle's snooty attitude, at least she realizes that Hillary's a loser on the national level. She writes: "[T]he bulk of the electorate, all those folks who won't tune into the race until after Labor Day '08, will be voting on Hillary the icon. Think headbands and cookie-baking. Think Vince Foster and the Rose law firm billing records and the health care debacle And let's face it: Her status as a senator from the ultra-uppity, Yankee state of New York is unlikely to help."
In addition, despite the hype about Kerry's loss as a boon to the Clinton machine, Hillary's searching-for-a-legacy husband isn't likely to be much help. He's a distraction at best, and by 2008, the amount of voters conned by his feel-good charisma and status as the first black president will have diminished. Besides, Clinton can't keep himself out of trouble. In an interview with ABC's Peter Jennings (hardly a GOP toady) last week, Clinton lashed out at the anchorman when the subject of his questionable "moral authority" came up. "You don't want to go here, Peter," Clinton said. "Not after what your people did. And the way youyour networkwhat you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea of what that's like."
Now that's a revelation. I'd been led to believe that Clinton's troubles were caused by Rupert Murdoch, not the dashing Mr. Jennings.
Returning to Cottle's advice to Democrats, unless Bush's second term is a disaster, Hillary, a GOP fundraising magnet, doesn't stand much of a chance. And while it's early to speculate about the president's successor, remember that shortly after Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in '96, Republicans were already looking to Bush for 2000. The GOP has a very weak bench for '08Bill Frist? Chuck Hagel? George Pataki? All non-starters who'd get trounced by a moderate Democrat from any region but the Northeast.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney vs. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh: That's the race to watch.
