The Reactionary Utopian
                      May 25, 2006


A VIBRANT DEMOCRACY
by Joe Sobran

     Just when I was almost convinced that President 
Disastro had guaranteed Democratic gains in this year's 
elections, and maybe in 2008 as well, I read Jeffrey 
Goldberg's article on the Democrats' strategies in THE 
NEW YORKER. These guys are hopeless.

     Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National 
Committee, insists that "this is a Democratic country, 
with a big 'D'" -- though Goldberg observes that 
self-identified conservatives, the Republican base, 
outnumber self-identified liberals, the Democrats' base, 
by a 3-to-2 margin.

     Dean's idea of a winning issue for his party? "The 
Republicans are cutting school-lunch programs." That 
ought to set the voters on fire! More free lunches!

     At the local level, Goldberg finds Democratic 
politicians much more sensible. Many of them fear for the 
party if Hillary Clinton gets its presidential nomination 
in 2008, because she alarms conservatives without 
satisfying principled liberals. In this, she mirrors 
George W. Bush, who horrifies liberals and increasingly 
estranges the conservatives who once supported him.

     Bush's plunge in the polls doesn't translate into 
Democratic popularity. It may translate into opportunity 
for a third party, such as the conservative Constitution 
Party, which is beckoning to the base Bush has driven to 
desertion.

     In 1992, Bush's father lost in his bid for 
reelection in large part because he had betrayed his 
conservative base, which stayed home in November. The 
younger Bush was determined to avoid his father's 
mistakes, but he has repeated them, even surpassing the 
old man's unpopularity.

     But conservatives aren't going to turn to liberals 
for relief from Bush. Their chief complaint is that he 
has given us even bigger government than the Democrats 
had. Some of them have finally figured out that war is 
pretty hard to reconcile with modest government.

     The president Bush is most often likened to is 
Lyndon Johnson, who expanded government in every 
direction with both war and entitlements but only wound 
up loathed by both parties. And Johnson was a far smarter 
politician than Bush.

     The elder Bush made a famous miscalculation. He 
thought he could get away with breaking his promises to 
conservatives because "they have nowhere else to go." He 
didn't foresee that they might vote for Ross Perot or 
simply refuse to vote.

     Discontent with both major parties was so strong in 
1992 that at one point Perot led both Bush the elder and 
Bill Clinton in the polls. Then he suddenly withdrew from 
the race; when he jumped back in, his base wasn't there 
anymore. He appeared merely eccentric, and nobody knew 
quite what he stood for. He'd wasted a golden opportunity 
for a new party to defeat the country's political 
duopoly.

     Now that opportunity has come again, thanks to a 
second Bush. It's easy to forget how appealing and 
refreshing Perot seemed at first; he also had the 
advantage of a huge fortune, despite his populist manner.

     All of which raises the big question: Can a third 
party challenge get anywhere without a billionaire? Or is 
this "democracy" now doomed to the dreary power struggles 
of the two plutocratic parties, debating school-lunch 
programs?

     Think of it. If Hillary serves two terms in the 
White House, we will eventually have spent 28 consecutive 
years under presidents named Bush and Clinton. Then, by 
my reckoning, it will be time for another Bush. Thank 
heaven for equal opportunity.

     We are said to be in a conservative era. That seems 
to be true in the sense that both parties now feel it's 
vital to deceive the voters with conservative slogans. 
Liberal slogans don't seem to work anymore.

     Some conservatives are so alarmed by the specter of 
President Hillary that they are frantically warning that 
her attempt to position herself as a moderate is phony. 
But it can hardly be any phonier than Bush's efforts to 
pose as a conservative. Being confusing doesn't 
necessarily make you interesting. Both major parties are 
exhausted.

     Goldberg quotes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 
on how a big Democratic victory this fall might liven 
things up: "We win in '06, we get subpoena power," 
meaning full investigations of the Bush administration. 
But other Democrats fear that such talk may backfire, 
scaring off moderate voters and rousing dispirited 
Republicans to fight. One party can't do anything right, 
and the other doesn't know what to do.

     In my lifetime, the number of major league baseball 
teams has grown from 16 to 30. The number of television 
networks has exploded from three to several hundred. Even 
the McDonald's menu is much longer than it used to be. 
But the number of major political parties has been kept 
stable: two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060525.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2006 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, 
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in 
print or Internet publications without express permission 
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to 
interested individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."