|
The Republicans got 25 years of traction by defining liberalism in terms of Carter's failures. (And Carter wasn't even a liberal.) They insisted that the Carter recession was solely the fault of liberal economic policies and brought up Carter at every turn. There was a time when their attacks were so effective that many liberals preferred to call themselves "progressives." Shouldn't the Democrats take the same approach and define conservativism by the failures of Bush? Why let Limbaugh define the Republican Party, when Bush has already failed miserably? Rush is obnoxious and deserves to be mocked, but he's not going to fail because he has no decision-making power.
The Democratic Party should be spending more time equating the problems we face with Bush conservativism. We should be doing what we can to help more Americans understand that "conservative" is a dirty word, and Bush's failures are the best proof of that. Mocking and criticizing a blowhard like Rush certainly should play a role in such a strategy, but turning Rush in the central target of our scorn does not tap into the real anger that Americans have with the failure of Bush conservativism. The Democrats are letting Bush off the hook, and there's no reason to do that after he brought about one of the greatest economic crises in our history and sent more than 4,000 troops to their deaths.
|