Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giving 'em Hell
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research/National Review ^ | Posted May 16, 2003 | David Frum

Posted on 05/16/2003 11:56:34 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln

National Review
Publication Date: June 2, 2003

Memo to: Any Democrat Who Will Listen
From: The Ghost of Harry S. Truman
Re: Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?

I don't know why the hell I keep sending these memos--none of you fellows (and women! I didn't forget!) who call yourselves Democrats nowadays ever read them. I can see you young folks sniggering--you think I'm out-of-date, that I've nothing to say to the modern voter. Nowadays the only people who ever seem to have a good word for me are Republicans--can you imagine that? Well, I have news for you Democrats with all your Third Way bilgewater: Loud Hawaiian shirts never went out of date! Aerobic walking never went out of date! I never went out of date! So listen.

There were nine of you up on that stage at the University of South Carolina, and five of you might make a plausible president. The trouble is, not one of you makes even a half-way plausible candidate for president.

You all remember my come-from-behind victory in 1948. But none of you seems to remember how I came from behind. I went into that election with every disadvantage you can imagine: a tense international situation, runaway inflation, a poor personal image, a three-way split in our party. (From 1880 until 1964, I was the only Democrat not to carry South Carolina.)

But for all my difficulties, my opponent had a bigger one. The one supreme political issue in 1948 was making sure the Depression didn't come back. War, peace, inflation, corruption in government--none of it mattered compared to the fear of mass firings and breadlines. And guess what? The American people didn't trust my opponent's party on that supreme issue.

So you know what I did? I just hammered and hammered on that one point of vulnerability. It was ugly and dirty--I even accused Governor Dewey of wanting to stick a pitchfork in the farmer's back! But it worked.

Dewey kept telling the voters that the Depression was ancient history, that it was time to move on to other issues, like efficiency in government. (You know, if I remember right he even had a healthcare plan, just like you all do.) But the politicians don't get to choose what the issues are--only the voters do that. And a politician who goes around the country telling the voters that they've chosen wrong is on his way to becoming an ex-politician.

And that's just what you boys (and girls--I remembered again) are doing! The issue in 2004 is security against terror. There will be other issues, but that's the issue. George W. Bush is fixing to beat your brains out with it just the way I beat up on poor old Tom Dewey. And you're fixing to let him get away with it.

The problem isn't just that so many of you got the Iraq war wrong, although just about all of you did. What's so tough about saying: "We're at war--and I support our forces and our president"? That's what Ike kept saying when he was preparing to run against me in 1952. This fellow from Massachusetts who had the brainwave of voting for the war and speaking against it--what was he thinking of? In politics it's sometimes good to be sneaky, but it's never good to look sneaky. Big chin or no big chin, he looks sneaky to me.

On the other hand, Governor Dewey looked as honest as the day, and it didn't do him any good at all. You win or lose according to whether you're offering voters what they need--and you lot just aren't.

Can I remind you of some basic facts?

Less than two years ago, 20 foreigners snuck into this country, eluded the CIA and the FBI for months, and killed 3,000-plus Americans. Two years later, the CIA and the FBI are still giant bureaucratic messes. Our government still has no idea how many foreign nationals have overstayed their visas and has no plan for finding them even if it did know how many there were. Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans under age 10 and over age 70 are waiting in 30-minute-long lines to take off their shoes and walk through a metal detector.

You've got some huge issues there. And you keep throwing them away. Everybody can see that you feel about the war on terror the way the Republican mossbacks in the Do-Nothing Congress felt about the Securities and Exchange Commission: No matter what you say on the campaign trail, you'll shut it down the moment you lay your hands on any real power.

If you wanted to win in 2004, you would have backed the war on terror 150 percent. Instead of whining about wiretaps and the rights of illegal immigrants, you would have slammed President Bush for not doing enough to track down terrorists inside this country. You'd have asked tough questions about all these Islamic extremists who keep being invited to the White House--can you imagine what the Republicans would have said in 1948 if they'd caught me hosting a roomful of Communist fellow-travelers? Then, when you'd bullet-proofed yourselves on the supreme issue, you could have safely talked about your issues.

Now it's too late.

Dewey could have beaten me in 1948. All he needed was one extra dose of imagination and two extra doses of killer instinct. He lacked both, and now the only thing named after him is a law firm. You went the same way--and this time the result won't even be close.

David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: davidfrum; democrats

1 posted on 05/16/2003 11:56:34 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
you would have slammed President Bush for not doing enough to track down terrorists inside this country.

I think that, ah, President Truman is wrong on this point. The two most sensible ways to track down terrorists inside this country is to enagage in racial profiling, and harassment of immigrants. Now, I think those things are good approaches -- but I'm a Conservative. The Dems lose a whole lot of core voters if they start supporting anti-immigrant laws and/or racial profiling.

The Republicans had the issue of homeland security from the start. The Dems could piggyback on board (but that just sends the message that the Republican approach is the right approach) or else ratchet up the issue with profiling Arabs at airports. Hobson's choice.

2 posted on 05/16/2003 12:05:49 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Dewey could have beaten me in 1948. All he needed was one extra dose of imagination and two extra doses of killer instinct. He lacked both, and now the only thing named after him is a law firm.

Actually, the New York State Thruway was renamed the Thomas E. Dewey New York State Thruway.

3 posted on 05/16/2003 1:05:29 PM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Can't be Truman. Not nearly enough cursing.
4 posted on 05/16/2003 7:55:44 PM PDT by gcruse (Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson