Saturday, October 18, 2008

Wall Street Journal Has Acute Democrat-Phobia: Opinion Piece Warns of Possible "Liberal Supermajority"

The possibility of a Democratic sweep, including a filibuster-proof Senate, makes the Wall Street Journal's editorial board afraid -- very afraid. In a recent opinion piece, the newspaper examines changes that it believes a Democratic "supermajority" would implement. I have listed some of the policies below, mixing in my own snide editorial comments!

(1) Before getting detailed, the essay warns that a Democratic sweep "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."

Reaction: Which part of the 1960s should we fear? The enactment of the Voting
Rights Act, legislation banning race, sex, and national origin discrimination in
employment, or laws prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public
(2) Medicare for all. The article points out that sneaky Democrats responded to the political defeat of "Hillarycare" by breaking it down into component parts, like Schip (State Children's Health Insurance Program). A liberal supermajority would "lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave."

Reaction: "Government-run" health insurance? This is a mischaracterization of
Obama's health plan. Also, what chutzpah -- criticizing health care for indigent

(3) Green Revolution

Reaction: Personally, I do not fear having a healthy environment or stronger
efforts to make that a reality. What about you?
(4) "Free Speech and Voting Rights" (yes -- a quote!). Democrats would legislate "same-day" voter registration. "Acorn and the 'community organizer' left" support this. Also, DC residents would have representation in Congress. Plus felons would have the opportunity to vote.

Reaction: I am not sure pure conservatives would oppose enlarging "free speech
and voting rights." These rights strike at the heart of egalitarian democratic
participation. But the WSJ fears political participation by certain classes (felons, DC Democrats, who are largely black), not all. Also, several states -- red, blue, and purple -- now have same-day registration.
(5) "Special-interest potpourri" (my favorite heading in the essay). This section includes a laundry-list of feared policies, such as "intrusive regulation" of the Internet, the trial of "terrorists" in federal courts, watering down of "No Child Left Behind" standards, and the burdensome formation of new rights of action "sprinkled throughout legislation."

Reaction: Isn't No Child Left Behind watered-down by definition because it is
an unfunded mandate? Also, the lack of explicit "rights of actions" in some
federal legislation backfired on Republicans when the Supreme Court struck down
the injunction in the Ohio voter case. I really appreciate irony. Finally, the purpose of a criminal trial is to prosecute "suspected" terrorists (or other types of accused criminals). The assumption of guilt is probably the most loathsome and dangerous aspect of Bush's military tribunals. With all of the talk about "patriotism" we usually hear from conservatives, their willingness to abandon core American principles stated in the Bill of Rights sends a terribly mixed message. Conservative libertarians, however, value those rights. Ron Paul, for example, opposes the Patriot Act.


CKAinRedStateUSA said...

There is real reason to fear a Demockacratic supermajority plus, God forbid, Barack and Michelle Obama at the White House.

That would signal a very long night for America.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

CK - I am not sure why the night would be "long." Could you elaborate.

James Shott said...

Obama as President, Pelosi as Speaker, Reid as Majority Leader and a supermajority in Congress rightfully alarms the WSJ, as it should every freedom-loving American.

On its face, this much power in the hands of one political party is potentially as dangerous as any situation I can remember in my lifetime, or have read about in history.

And when you honestly examine the root causes and the "fertilizing" of the financial/credit crisis we are now enduring and the hand the Democrats had in that, that gives you a pretty clear picture of the horrors this situation makes possible.

Perhaps as a progressive you yearn for a more socialist America, but the record of socialism in the world is pretty dismal, and I prefer not to go further down that path.

I suspect the Journal agrees.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Hi, James. Thanks for stopping by. I encourage you to read more of the blog so that you can have an informed decision about me, rather than one based on how you perceive a "progressive" thinks.

Take your view of the financial crisis, for instance. I have posted numerous times on the role that BOTH parties, Wall Street and Main Street had in that crisis -- as well as the media for not focusing on it early enough. Try these posts:;;; And I have criticized Democrats for blaming "deregulation." No law was abandoned that could have prevented this. Some policies could have been enacted to prevent it; I blame both parties for not doing so.

With respect to party dominance in Washington, that's what we had for a large part of the Bush administration -- a Republican president, House, Senate, AND Supreme Court. Are your fears about Democratic dominance informed by Bush's excess?

Finally, I believe that "socialism" usually serves as a scary conversation stopper. It does not help labeling someone a socialist, when even socialists probably disagree with what the term means. Besides, please find a post I have made that resembles a call for socialism.

I look forward to more exchanges - but if you look around the blog, you'll see that I resist blanket categorization. I have even defended Palin in several essays!

Real Time Analytics