My favorite thought piece of the day comes by way of the National Review’s Byron York, who wrote a column for The Hill noting, “So we’re divided — is that George Bush’s fault?” I think the answer’s clearly “yes,” but consider York’s case.
Ask yourself this question: What actions, or series of actions, could President Bush and GOP leaders in Congress have taken in the war on terror that would cause Democratic leaders to say, seven weeks before mid-term elections, “We are all united in a common effort to defeat the enemy. President Bush and Republicans in the House and Senate have brought us together like never before. We see no need to change leadership.”
Can you argue, with a straight face, that there is there any set of circumstances imaginable today, five years after September 11, that would lead to such a statement?
I didn’t think so.
This, of course, is a fairly silly way of characterizing the debate. York’s right to the extent that even if Dems were satisfied with Bush’s counter-terrorism measures, they’d argue that they should have power for a variety of other reasons (economic policy, health care, taxes, energy, environmental protections, etc.). So, no, there’s no imaginable way that Dems would say, “Yep, the GOP deserves the majority.”
But to suggest that somehow Dems are standing in opposition to Bush’s policies out of spite and partisanship is absurd. And yet, that’s York’s argument in a nutshell.
Consider:
[H]ow, looking back on the last five years, could Bush have made Democrats happier?
What could he have done that would have brought Democrats together with Republicans in one united effort to defeat our terrorist enemies?
I honestly thought, at first, that this was some kind of joke. Isn’t this an implicit argument that the Bush White House has executed counter-terrorism measures in some kind of above-board, non-partisan fashion? Does anyone, anywhere, seriously believe this? Talk about arguing with a “straight face”….
Democrats lined up and saluted after 9/11. They were completely committed to a military campaign in Afghanistan, no matter the cost. And whereas Dems saw a security crisis that demanded unity, Bush saw a political opportunity that demanded exploitation.
It’s as if York has been living in a different country, some kind of bizarro world in which the president has reached out to Dems, resisted the temptation to let politics dictate national security, and denounced any effort to question the patriotism and/or sincerity of those who had genuine policy disagreements.
Yeah, right. Tell me another one, Byron.
