Balkinization: <b>Dangerous Times</b>

Dangerous Times

Criticism of Zell Miller's keynote address at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday has been particularly harsh. And with good reason. The problem, as William Saletan explains, is that Miller essentially equated opposition to the President with opposition to the country.

"[W]hile young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan," Miller argued, "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." That is to say, things wouldn't be going so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan if the Democrats weren't trying to prevent Bush from getting another four year term. The Democrats, Miller insisted are "[m]otivated more by partisan politics than by national security." The problem, Miller insisted, is that Democrats hate America: In their "warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy." Although Miller hastened to add that he was impugning the Democrats "judgment," and not their "patriotism," his remarks did precisely that. The leader of the Democrats, John Kerry, Miller insisted, would sell out our security to the hated French: Kerry "would let Paris decide when America needs defending."

The crowd at the Republican Convention roared in approval. Matthew Ygelsias, who was there, said he actually felt a little bit afraid.

The fact that Miller is still registered as a Democrat did not change matters in the slightest. The RNC and the Bush campaign vetted the text of his remarks beforehand. He was delivering the message they wanted delivered. And that message is what is so troubling.

Does the Republican leadership, or for that matter, the Republican rank and file actually believe that political opposition to the President's policies is truly disloyal? If so, this is a serious problem for the health of American democracy. It's fair game to call your opponents stupid and their policies unsound. It's even OK to say that what they are proposing will be bad for the country and for the cause of freedom around the world. But you cross the line when you argue that political opposition is designed to weaken America at the hands of its enemies, and that the other party seeks to sell America out.

That is one reason why I thought Anne Coulter's recent book entitled "Treason" was a sorry comment on the state of American democracy. One can dismiss Coulter as a freak show, although she gets plenty of air time on the cable channels. But when Coulter's basic message-- that political opposition is disloyal-- is delivered by a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention to a wildly cheering audience, these sentiments can no longer be seen as isolated examples of fringe lunacy. Instead, they now are being employed as a key campaign strategy.

Terrorism around the world makes the world a dangerous place. What happened the other night at the Republican Convention makes things dangerous in an entirely different way.

Posted 8:55 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

That's what the man said. Is it coincidence that he mentions young americans dying and Democrats wanting to oust Bush in the same sentence? Was Iraq even our enemy before the invasion? Are they now? And does visiting a country we're pouring billions in aid to constitute "aid to enemies?"

Now ask yourself this question. America has just been attacked. The majority of the attackers appear to be Saudi, and the attack appears to have been masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. I make sure that family members and other associates of that mastermind avoid being questioned or interrogated by, when no air traffic is in the air whatsoever, granting them special clearance to leave the country. Doesn't that come a little closer to aiding enemies?

The fact of the matter is that Miller is throwing down a threat that is so old its dusty. If you don't vote for your wartime president, you're not supporting your commander in chief, therefore you're not supporting your soldiers. And its a flawed syllogism when you consider that those young men wouldn't be out in the sands dying if GWB was capable of even properly identifying our enemies, as opposed to simply distracting the American eye with flagwaving, or that a president who acts like a warmonger, in being voted quickly out of office, doesn't get the opportunity to waste more lives on family vendettas.

# posted by

Christopher Chopin : 1:22 PM

Actually, I thought MG's previous post on the civil liberties history of the Court during wartime should've been more politically geared, not less. Obviously less cynical than me...

But I'm not seeing how the examination of the concept that opposition to a commander in chief is treason can be looked at except from the standpoint of the crime of treason...legal analysis is required. Yes, its being used for political purposes, but the statement is one based on an interpretation of a crime, and a bad one, to suggest that engaging in the adversarial political process against the commander in chief during wartime aids our enemies, and therefore consists of treason.

I can think of nothing more disloyal to the most basic American idea than the suggestion that political opposition should be in any way squelched. The fact that it seems a reasonable idea, politically, to anyone, is exactly why legal analysis must be employed.

# posted by

Christopher Chopin : 4:19 PM

Agreed that Zell's technique, which cynically is used but disavowed or denied when challenged, is old news. The "bloody shirt" was used for decades after the Civil War. D-R called Federalists royalists, while Federalists called D-R atheistic French supporting radicals. How things sometimes change so little.

I wonder how the parties survived in the middle years of the 1800s when there was no recent war and slavery wasn't such a big issue. Being for or against a national bank is so boring next to being a traitor.

# posted by

Joe : 12:48 AM

Liked your Zell Miller article. To read something from the other side, check out my piece on variety in the Republican party that I wrote Friday on my blog:
http://truthprobe.blogspot.com

Tom

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:10 PM

Does the Republican leadership, or for that matter, the Republican rank and file actually believe that political opposition to the President's policies is truly disloyal?If the President is a Rethug? Yes.
If the President is a Dem? No.

# posted by

Peter : 9:23 AM

Vous avez un blog très agréable et je l'aime, je vais placer un lien de retour à lui dans un de mon blogs qui égale votre contenu. Il peut prendre quelques jours mais je ferai besure pour poster un nouveau commentaire avec le lien arrière.

Merci pour est un bon blogger.

# posted by

Unknown : 11:17 AM