Delusions of Relevance

I hate to be harping on the Democrats so much; as commenters point out, the right has its fair share of loonies and dangerously angry people, but they are thoroughly overshadowed by the left these days. Arthur Chrenkoff, an admitted conservative and Republican sympathizer (he's Australian/Polish), describes the "delusions of relevance" within the Democrats.

...when the confused but, by comparison, relatively sane Kerry campaign went down in flames, for many in the Democratic Party it was an indication that far from not moving enough to the sensible and credible center, the mistake was not going far enough to the left. And so now, seemingly every day brings yet another bizarre and/or offensive outburst from Howard Dean, Charles Rangel, Dick Durbin or some other leading light of the Donkey Party.

But hysterics and play-acting in the Capitol basement are not signs of revitalization and enthusiasm; they demonstrate desperation and impotency of a party which has been consigned to opposition and which can't quite dig itself up from the hole. Politics is cyclical, and no doubt the Dems will make a comeback one day. Whether it will be in 2006, 2008 or later, remains to be seen; the timing will depend on the ability of the party leadership to square the electoral circle.

...Or, first of all to locate genuine party leadership (Arthur neglected Harry Reid, he's another of those regularly delusional voices.) Patrick Ruffini has noticed that Hillary is staying so far away from the mad ranting that she's practically joined the Republicans. The real risk to the Republicans at this point is complacency. They can safely ignore the centrists, because their opponents have gone to war against good sense, and they might not see the threat from the Democratic centrists, including a repositioned Hillary Clinton, when the current Democratic leadership implodes. It is possible for the public to dislike both parties (actually quite likely.) As one group of Democrats lose credibility ... and dignity, really, the Republicans do not automatically gain esteem. It may well be that many voters, like myself, for example, provide votes and support polls to the Republicans less out of love for their policies than fear of their opponents. If the scary Deaniacs go away, as I am sure they must, the Republicans will be fighting on a very different front, against very different opponents, and they may be caught quite unprepared.

That's what Ruffini is saying. He's urging Republicans to quit fixating on the opponent who is dissolving into chaos and irrelevance, and concentrate on those who have "triangulated" the next election better. Someone inclined to conspiracy theories might even see a clever plan to distract attention away from Hillary. Could the Howard and Harry show be the political equivalent of a rodeo clown, who distracts the bull with colors, movement and noise while the cowboy goes unnoticed? I'm not one of those thinkers, but I do believe that people on Senator Clinton's team are thinking that way. When Hillary accepts the nomination in '08, all the scandals and tensions of the White House years will seem like ancient, and irrelevant, history.

Retuning to Chrenkoff, he closes with this observation.

The great divide of politics, both internationally and at home, is between those who think that America is the problem and those who think it is the solution. The problem for the Democratic Party is that a large section of its base thinks that the biggest threats facing the United States and the world are Republican administrations and global warming - a view not shared widely in the electorate.

He may well be right about the "great divide". He may well be right about the Democrats problem too, but I wanted to use it to illustrate a different point. My personal beliefs don't fit well with his model. I'm fine with a Republican administration, I voted for this President after all, but I do believe that climate change is one of, if not the most serious issue facing the world in the coming decades. I've thought that since I studied climate in the 1970's, when only scientists (and students) were aware of the issue. Thirty years later I'm forced to choose between the threat of global terrorism, and the threat of global warming. I don't like the choices, but the collapse of the Democrats into anti-Bush obsession has left me without a viable option.

Neither can I adjust my beliefs on the issue to conform to the political agenda. Issues like abortion rights, support for the war, and the nomination of judges can be influenced and shaped by the ebb and flow of political ideologies, but the planet cares nothing for polls or elections. The climate will do whatever it is going to do, and neither speeches nor blog posts will change things. I have a good many more friends in the conservative camp these days then among the liberals, and they like to chide me over my resolute convictions on the global climate, but I can quietly allow them to win very argument (I no longer even argue the point) as it won't change a thing. You cannot campaign away this problem. That those Democrats who do take the problem seriously usually do so out of an equal ignorance, and for all the wrong reasons, really hurts things as well. Regularly some environmental activist says something foolish that only further discredits an important point. Alas, I've had three decades to ponder the issue and come to terms with the frightening aspects of the future. Now that its in the grip of partisan politics the point is really lost.

But this is not a post about the climate (I do that over at Birds Eye View, anyway.) Delusional thinking among the Dems is a sad mess for anyone who believes and hopes in the workings of a healthy democracy. I wait eagerly for the day this febrile seizure runs its course and we can return to something approaching serious politics.