Facing A New McCarthyism, Most Democratic Leaders Are Hiding

FRANK RICH
The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay

New York Times
March 27, 2005

Culture is often a more reliable prophecy than religion of where the country is going, and our culture has been screaming its theocratic inclinations for months now. The anti-indecency campaign, already a roaring success, has just yielded a new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin, who had been endorsed by the Parents Television Council and other avatars of the religious right. The push for the sanctity of marriage (or all marriages except Terri and Michael Schiavo's) has led to the banishment of lesbian moms on public television. The Armageddon-fueled worldview of the "Left Behind" books extends its spell by the day, soon to surface in a new NBC prime-time mini-series, "Revelations," being sold with the slogan "The End is Near."

All this is happening while polls consistently show that at most a fifth of the country subscribes to the religious views of those in the Republican base whom even George Will, speaking last Sunday on ABC's "This Week," acknowledged may be considered "extremists." In that famous Election Day exit poll, "moral values" voters amounted to only 22 percent. Similarly, an ABC News survey last weekend found that only 27 percent of Americans thought it was "appropriate" for Congress to "get involved" in the Schiavo case and only 16 percent said it would want to be kept alive in her condition. But a majority of American colonists didn't believe in witches during the Salem trials either - any more than the Taliban reflected the views of a majority of Afghans. At a certain point - and we seem to be at that point - fear takes over, allowing a mob to bully the majority over the short term. (Of course, if you believe the end is near, there is no long term.)

That bullying, stoked by politicians in power, has become omnipresent, leading television stations to practice self-censorship and high school teachers to avoid mentioning "the E word," evolution, in their classrooms, lest they arouse fundamentalist rancor. The president is on record as saying that the jury is still out on evolution, so perhaps it's no surprise that The Los Angeles Times has uncovered a three-year-old "religious rights" unit in the Justice Department that investigated a biology professor at Texas Tech because he refused to write letters of recommendation for students who do not accept evolution as "the central, unifying principle of biology." Cornelia Dean of The New York Times broke the story last weekend that some Imax theaters, even those in science centers, are now refusing to show documentaries like "Galápagos" or "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" because their references to Darwin and the Big Bang theory might antagonize some audiences. Soon such films will disappear along with biology textbooks that don't give equal time to creationism.

Next to what's happening now, official displays of DeMille's old Ten Commandments monuments seem an innocuous encroachment of religion into public life. It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend, and what's most scary about it is how little was heard from the political opposition. The Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/arts/27Rich.html?oref=login

It took an army lawyer to finally stand up to Joe McCarthy.

...and his one-man media campaign against tail-gunner Joe.

Sadly, we have NO ONE of Murrow's character and mettle to fill this role today...:(

said that he waited until Joe McCarthy's prestige had slipped to go against him.

I used to think that made Murrow less brave, but now that I'm older and wiser, I'm glad that Murrow waited until the moment was right.

i'm glad there is no democrat to be found whoring it up on TV trying to take the oppositional viewpoint.

y'all can call it spinelessness, but i like to call it the casual observation of the Politics of Self-Destruction.

Right. We sure wouldn't want the Democratic Party and its leaders acting like an opposition to George Bush and the Republican Party.

The right-wing sure wouldn't like that.

we need to save that for actual policy.


They don't have support within their own party, they don't have support of the Judges, not even their own, and they don't have the support of the American people.


yet they keep going. There's nothing for us to do, but sit and watch. We get far more mileage out of not being in it, than if we were.


if we were there, we just give them a target.


remember they control the media. I'd much rather have the media crowing "where are the dems?" than "Those Democrats are gleeful about the Murder of Saint Teri. Told you they were Godless."


the latter is a soundbite that sticks with ya for years, and eventually turns into "common wisdom" about democrats.


As it stands - if all they can say is "where are the dems?", that will fade away.

"We don't need to act as opposition to them on this Schiavo thing."

Right. Especially since nearly 80% of Americans are opposed to what Bush and the Republicans are doing "on this Schiavo thing".

Democratic leaders don't want to stick their necks out to far on "this Schiavo thing". Or for that matter on any issue of importance to average Americans.

I wonder if that's why 42% of Americans don't like the Democrats handling of this matter which seems to be say and do nothing.

This has no place in the American legislative branch.


it's for the family, and for the Judicial. Congress has no place in it. ergo - the Democrats should not be involved.

reactive politics does work sometimes. they would do well to avoid the stench of this issue no matter what side they're on at this point IMO. I still haven't figured out how I feel about it all yet. Terrible thing all the way around.

Most of the American public fall right in line with the Democrats on most issues. Most believe in gun control, legal abortion, that we should preserve the enviroment, that the theory of evolution is correct, that Shiavo should be allowed to pass on peacefully, etc. etc. right on down the line. It is high time that our so called leaders regained their cojones and stand up to these bullies. How can it be politically self destructive if the majority agree with you?

Sorry friend, you're just making up excuses for the Dem's lack of a spine.

and yet the majority believes that the majority is wingnuts and jesus freaks.




As long as the Media is not willing to be objective, this is a no-win ticking time bomb of an issue for us.


They'd just perform the grand misdirect - and it becomes the Democrats fault.


I'm not willing to bite on this issue. It's not the government's business one way or the other.


I'd rather stay out of it, and let the majority (who thinks they are not the majority) get more and more disgusted with the Right's antics and machinations.


Then when it comes time for us to stonewall on those issues that rightly fall under the legislative branch, we start looking more and more reasonable.


let the disgust for Republicans bubble and simmer along. Like a good soup.

The spineless Dems decided to believe in the soundbite rather than stand up for principle. It is high time that they recalled what their job is, representing their constituents and their opinion. If they did that they would quickly learn where the majority opinion is. But if we continue to not hold them to account, we are just as much at fault.

It took one moment of courage for an army lawyer to stand up to the bully McCarthy, and he wiped out the spector of McCarthyism. We need for our so called leaders to exhibit that same moment of courage and wipe away the scourge of fundementalism that is gripping our country. That moment is now, who will stand up?

80% of americans beleive the government has no business in this.

74% of americans feel this is all about politics.



yet you want the Dems to go agaisnt the wishes of the populace.

why?

"80% of americans beleive the government has no business in this."

I'd like to see the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders take a clear stand against the Bush governments intervention in this case and speak up in support of 80% of Americans who believe this is a private family matter.

Now why is this so hard to understand?

why is that so hard to understand?

And keep their fundementalist Republican counterparts out of this mess. By simply staying on the sidelines, they are once again allowing the Religious Right to frame the debate on their terms, in their words. And as with abortion, the Democrats will be tagged as purveyors of death.

It is past time for the Dems to stand up to the bullies of the Religious Right, and start defining not only this debate, but all matters in the public interest in their own terms.

their constituents. :-)

Though I do think they should uyse this as an oppurtunity to call out DeLay's ethics violations. I don't really care to hear what they have to say on Shchiavo, because I don't think congress has a place in this anyways.

But if DeLay's goin to act all self righteous, it's time to hit him and hit him hard.

Delay has to be brought down. It's about damn time.

delay stepped in it hard this time, and i think after Easter break you are gonna see a whole lot of mud slinging on that point.

the political opposition."

The most significant sentence fragment therein.

Well what *is* the 'political opposition' saying? We dems have leaders; our DNC contributions are, in part ( I have understood), shared with Messrs. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, etc and , (don't remind me, please)Senators Hillary, Lieberman,and Schumer.

Where are they and what are they saying? If they are saying nothing... why, exactly?

Also.... dernit!!!... someone told me it was possible to access these truncated articles from the NY Times through Yahoo. Anyone know how?

I'd like to ascribe wisdom to their silence, but the best you can say about it is that it's a strategy, and as such it leaves me with a hollow feeling. They don't have to speak out--and be caught on record--as saying, "we want Terri to die". They COULD be quoted as saying "THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER, CONGRESS HAS NO BUSINESS HERE"; "THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS, CONGRESS HAS NO BUSINESS HERE"; OR "THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE STATES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS HERE".

They could be taking a stand on the Constitution. They could be taking a stand on something. Instead, they sit, silent.

when asked.



they're just not camera-whoring, or perhaps, not getting the coverage, since to the media - that's not the "right" answer.

They seem to be camera shy. Sure don't want to get out way in front of where the people are, even if 80% are opposed to government intervention in this private matter.

Lots of lame excuses, not good reasons, for Democratic inaction and passivity on this matter.

either way, i've heard several Congressman say this very thing.

and i'm not going to blame them.



What do you want Democrats do? Join in the Circus and inflame things all around? Really get in their and get political with this woman and her family's tragedy?


that's disgusting, and i would prefer it not happen.


No statement is the best statement at this juncture. Especially considering the religious juxtaposition of all this.

who stupidly VOTED for this Schaivo travesty, you can bet he is lying low NOW rather than explain his decision to the voters.

And you can bet that he is going to be dogged about this in every local visit until he provded some explanation for his refusal to represent the interests, and the marriages, of the people of his state and his district.

With the silence from our leaders, the GOP can paint any type of strawman opposition they want.

If only the dems could stay on message about jurisdiction. Once again the GOP jumps on an emotional issue that trumps the law, and sees how much they can milk out of it.

The other side is only encouraged to find new lines of attack. For months on this board we have been talking about not letting the Republicans frame the debate. Well, they just framed another one. The Dems could have drawn the country's attention to the dangers here in the Republicans' position. Instead they sit mute, and congratulate themselves that the country is seeing the Repubs for what they are. In a pig's eye. They're wondering why the Dems are allowing themselves to get the shit beat out of them on this, and not saying anything about anything.

who needs republicans?


now is the time for us to be quiet. out of respect for the situation if nothing else.


there's plenty of time later on to bring the fury.

To turn your statement around--"With silence (on the issues) like this, who needs Democrats?"

I mean it: what do they represent? What do they stand for? Does the country know? Do they want the country to know? Earlier in the thread you said that some Dems are speaking out "when they're asked". This is what we elect leaders for, to speak out only when asked?

You're damn right I don't support leaders who refuse to lead. I'll be noisy in my disapproval of these "leaders" who don't want to make a fuss, and I'll be noisy in my support of any elected Democrat who finally stands up and says Enough! Here is what we believe in, and we are passionate about it!

80% of Americans believe the government shouldn't be involved in this matter.


74% believe this is all about politics.


The Dems agree.

How About Democrats Siding With Most Americans On This Issue?

"80% of americans beleive the government has no business in this."

I'd like to see the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders take a clear stand against the Bush governments intervention in this case and speak up in support of 80% of Americans who believe this is a private family matter.

Now why is this so hard to understand?

why is that so hard to understand?

In a nutshell.. No political opposition for Bush* right from the beginning. We need to clean house some way. Nader was quite right there is hardly any difference between the two parties...

This guy RIPS on the Republicans in Congress and bunnypants for whipping up this Christian frenzy. It's probably the best dead-on summation I've seen so far in MSM.

He leaves nothing out: "Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. 'It is wise to always err on the side of life,' he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson."

Wow. Finally, someone stood up and said it.

things about the NYT. They both know how to cut through the bullshit & call a spade a spade.

Let's follow the logic of those who believe it's best for Democrats to remain silent on this issue because the Republicans will call them "killers" if they oppose government intervention to "save" her life.

Since right-wingers call abortion rights defenders "baby killers", should the Democratic Party and its leaders be silent and even stop defending the right of a woman to have an abortion?

Now we don't want those right-wingers calling us baby killers!

Now let's all go hide and hope the Republicans will stop their attacks on liberals and progressives and just go away. That'll stop them!

because it was the last in line? I am well in agreement with you. I don't see an upsurge of support for the Dems because of their silence while this issue rages. It would be a stretch to imagine people are sitting in front of their television sets, or around the water cooler, saying "I so admire the Democrats for not coming out and saying anything. They're just so noble. They have such class."

I think people aren't noticing the Democrats at all. You don't notice what isn't there.

You're right. I just clicked on reply under your post because you were last in line. I think that's the only way I can post a new comment if I'm not responding to a specific post. If there is another way to do it please let me know.

Tell me. Why do so many good people not understand why we have to take Bush and the Republican party on? Silence is golden? Not in this case!

the Reps. promulgate. On one hand, the Reps. are hanging themselves to some extent. I really don't understand, though, why the Dems have no collective spine at this point; we lost the election and have little to lose by speaking out. Someone has to.

under my post which will bring you up there) and click "reply" under the original post. Then your comment will appear after mine, and still follow the thread.

It puzzled me for the longest while why I was getting replies that seemed non sequiturs to what I was saying till I finally figured out what was happening. That people were not responding to my brilliance at all but were just using me as a convenience <sniffle> :)

I think the people who are glad our Dems are steering clear of this are thinking this is a no-win situation. Whereas I think they could have grabbed the bull by the horns and steered the conversation to what is really at stake here. I would have been so proud of them being bold, like we are proud of Dean when he is bold & doesn't back down.

Thanks for the information. Never noticed that "top" selection underneath posts. I'm relatively new here and I'm still learning the ropes.

Have to admit that I wished Howard Dean, along with many others, would demonstrate that "boldness". Boldness and backbone is something that seems to be in short supply right now. It's like Bush and Republicans are being given a free ride on so many issues for fear of making them angry! Democrats are appearing so reasonable almost to the point of being irrelevant to those who want to fight the Bush governments policies.

I'm not clear on what his job description is, whether this is the kind of thing the head of the party speaks out on. It seems to be more of a governmental thing. But there are at least 3 core Constitutional principles under assault here by the Repubs, and the Dems stand by in tasteful silence. Bah.

You are bitching that they should be out there saying something...well just when are they allowed any airtime on MSM?

These people cover the tiny group of people protesting outside the room of Schiavo, not one report of the protests last weekend. If they allowed a Dem to speak, it would be turned into, the speech of the ghouls, that want Terri dead. Damned if they do, Damned if they dont.

When they said it was a family issue. The Government has no right to intrude. They are going at their word..Not intruding.

Have any leading Democrats called a news conference on this matter?

Have they called the networks asking for "equal time" or any time at all?

It's obvious that the answers to both questions is a loud and resounding NO!

I don't think you will find any leading Democrats complaining about not getting news coverage on their views. They are hiding from the news media!

you really think it's because they have no balls?



you sure about that?


every last one of our democratic senators and congresspeople have no balls right?

brilliant analysis.

Your responding to a post in which I didn't write that. They have balls. Especially the males. They have no backbone. And they don't know how to fight Bush .... if they really want to.

your saying they're all afraid.


whether it's a spine or a set of balls.

you think they are shutting up to go along to get along.


bullshit and you know it.

Face it, MSM--Operation Schiavo FAILED.

You thought that by abetting the GOP into making Terri Schiavo a right-to-life poster child, you'd lock in public opinion against the Dems as godless embracers of death, absolve Tom DeLay's ethical sins, and unofficially kick off Jeb Bush's march to the White House. But the Dems didn't take the bait, and this article is nothing but an attempt to double down your bet. Get your OWN house in order, New York Times--if you believe we're facing a new McCarthyism, you'll get better results by taking the intiative to oppose it yourself.

:headbang:
rocknation

you got it right on the money.

supported the reinsertion of the tube including Tom Harkin, the Reverand Jesse Jackson, Lanny Davis, and half of the Congressional Black Caucus...

The Eleventh Circuit Court voted 11-2 not to hear the case...The two dissenting votes were Democratic appointees...

Interestingly the only Democrat in the Florida senate to vote for the last bill to reinsert the tube was an African American state senator from Tallahassee...


I have a theory why so many of my black brothers and sisters don't want to remove the tube... They know a thing or two about being vulnerable...

Here's a line from the Bob Dylan song Joey...

"His closest friends were black men 'cause they seemed to
understand
What it's like to be in society with a shackle on your hand."

Sums it all up....

after watching Tom DeLay on Nightline. The parallels are very scary.

The past week's events are more like the return of MacArthur, not Joe McCarthy.

When MacArthur returned from Korea, he was widely lauded as a hero. He was seen as the face of implacable resolve in the face of communist aggression. NO Democrat openly spoke against him, not even the man who had fired him. In fact, the only comment Truman made, which was off the record, was that the furor would die in 6 weeks.

MacArthur crash-landed because Senate Democrats were a hell of lot smarter than him or the GOP. They let him speak before Congress (Old soldiers never die), they let him have his tickertape parade, and they let him publicly speculate on being drafted as a presidential candidate. Instead of fighting him in the press, they invited him to testify before Congress. By having him in a situation that they could control, Democrats were able to show, through press releases, just how loony he was compared to other American generals, such as Omar Bradley. Rather than fight him head on, they turned his flank.

The target today is Tom Delay. This abject failure has weakened him in a way comparable to the fall of Gingrich. Rather than fight in the press, Congressional Democrats are wise to keep silent. The extent of their wisdom can only be truly judged if they take the opportunity that Delay has handed them. It's time to nail Teflon Tom to the wall. The ethical questions combined with a blatant politicizing of a private matter should prove to be his downfall.

And who will replace Delay if he becomes expendable?

This fight is not over one individual. This fight is over defending the Constitution and the right to die in dignity. The fight is against those who are subverting the Constitution and our rights.

The 83% of the public who are opposed to government intervention in this case are not focused on Delay. He's just one of many Republican leaders who are attacking our rights. Delay will not be replaced with someone who is on our side.

The Republicans turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower and ran him for President. The four Star General Eisenhower ended McCarthur's political ambitions. The rulers didn't want a very dangerous loony tunes in the White House who might initiate a nuclear war to "destroy communism".

If you remove the leaders, the body will be paralyzed. The paralysis may not be permanent, but it will buy breathing room as well as stop the momentum.

MacArthur's political ambitions were over before Eisenhower began running. Congressional Democrats exposed him for the nut he was.

Our disagreement is over methods. Challenging the wingnuts headon only increases their resistance. Systematically removing the more corrupt members of their leadership leaves them disorganized and incapable of further damaging the country.

The main role of the Democratic party today is to limit the damage. Step one is to remove brazenly corrupt hypocrites like Delay.