The Party that Thinks

The 2006 election season is well under way, and already many people are talking about what Democrats need to do to reclaim a majority in either the House or the Senate in November.

Here's an idea for the Democrats: show the American people you can think.

Thinking politicians have gone out of fashion in the last 15 years or so. This trend got started when Bill Clinton decided to minimize displays of his exceptional intelligence and encourage people to think of him as just a regular, ordinary fellow, a "Bubba", with the same tastes, desires, and capabilities as the average American. George W. Bush, with nothing close to a great intellect, sold his limited abilities as a virtue, that the problems of the world did not need creative thought, but could all be solved with the tough-guy machismo that he embodies.

But if the last year has taught the American people anything, it is that such qualities are almost useless to achieving real solutions. Consider the people of California, who elected as Governor a movie actor with no experience in governing, because they apparently believed that the tough, action-oriented persona he often projects in movies could be applied to alleviate all the problems in the state. Now they have come to realize that all the talk about "girlie-men" does not a single thing to reduce deficits, or provide necessary skills for the children of today so that they can survive in the world of the future. No one talks now about modifying the Constitution so the Governor of California can be elected President.

No, problems are not solved or in any way lessened by intimidation, since problems have no emotions and are unable to feel fear. Instead, problems respond to solutions developed and implemented through the most creative thinking, unaffected by pre-existing biases.

During the 15 months or so since I first discovered the blogosphere, I have had the occasion to read many, many examples of creative thinking, where people have considered a series of facts and developed extremely logical conclusions and ideas that I had not thought of myself. Unfortunately, these conclusions and ideas very rarely come from elected Democratic officials. The only example that comes immediately to mind is that of Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who considered facts about the situation in Iraq, and concluded that the presence of American troops there provides the fuel for the insurgency, and by withdrawing the fuel, we could end the insurgency. Whether you agree with him or not, it is apparent that his solution is brought on by extensive thinking about reality and not a need to project himself as a man with a huge excess of testosterone.

Now is the time to establish the Democrats as the Party that Thinks. Here are three myths that Democrats can explode and enhance their position while showing their abilities as thinkers (note: all of these ideas have already been stated by bloggers, usually in less developed language):

Myth #1. George W. Bush is doing everything in his power to win the Iraq War and defend this country from terrorists.

I occasionally get exposed to writing by some of the most unpleasantly conservative writers in the world. One of their favorite tools is to mention the American experience in World War II, and postulate that the USA could never have defeated the Axis if the press had covered events like it does today or if those opposed to the war today had existed during that war.

I have news for the conservatives: this is not World War II. The enemy is not the same sort of enemy that the USA fought in World War II. But more to the point, the activities of the American people today are nothing like that of the American people during World War II.

People of that time made huge sacrifices to support the war effort. They gave up unlimited use of items we take for granted, like gasoline, so that the troops could have them instead. There was a draft that spared no income group, the sons of Congressmen and Senators went to war and a few were killed. And they endured a large tax increase to pay for all the things that were required to win the war and protect the nation. Some Americans paid income taxes for the first times in their lives. Irving Berlin even wrote a patriotic song for the occasion, "I Paid My Taxes Today".

In this war, there have been no tax increases; instead, we have had multiple tax cuts whose benefits have mostly gone to the most wealthy in this country. This has hampered the ability to prosecute the Iraq war and protect the people from terrorism at home. Since pretty much all of the money for these activities has come from borrowing, it follows that there is going to be less money for them, and a real risk that certain things that are needed to achieve our war goals and anti-terrorist goals will go unfunded, and undone.

George W. Bush and the Republican Congress says that taxes cannot, under any circumstances, be raised. But if the existing tax burden can never be increased, then it follows that it is the most important thing, more important than defeating terrorism or winning the war in Iraq. Thus, George W. Bush is not doing everything he can to win the war and protect the people from terrorism. The current tax burden or even more tax cuts are the most important things to him. Whatever Karl Rove says, the Republicans do not understand what is required to enhance national security. End of myth #1.

2. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is absolutely essential to foiling plots to commit terrorist acts inside of this country.

The Republicans in the last few weeks have made a habit of saying, "it is absolutely essential that we conduct this surveillance of the terrorists". This has a basic implication: if the Bush administration says that some particular person is a terrorist, then that person is actually a terrorist, no further input needed. It goes against a basic American principle, that people are innocent until proven guilty. For this reason, the FISA court was created so that a different set of eyes could consider the available evidence, and decide whether the requested search complied with the spirit of the 4th Amendment forbidding "unreasonable" search and seizure.

But all of this discussion fails to explain why all this surveillance must be warrantless. Why is the lack of a warrant the difference between success and failure in a surveillance activity? This is the only thing that the administration changed about past surveillance activities, why should this be the key? The Republicans never explain, and forever deliver canards like, "if Al-Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why." Nothing in the old system prevented them from conducting their desired surveillance in such a scenario, especially when they have 72 hours after the fact to get the needed warrant. Why does this sole requirement make the surveillance impossible? Is any court likely to reject the request for a warrant if a known Al-Qaeda terrorist calls someone in this country? Logical considerations of the past history of the FISA court, and the current struggle this country is involved in, must lead to the conclusion that such a rejection could not happen.

No, all the theoretical situations that Republicans have put forth can all be handled by the existing FISA law, no additional presidential action will make the system any more effective. End of myth #2.

3. George W. Bush is an extremely courageous man, the courage needed to lead the nation in an extremely turbulent time like this.

This is the easiest myth to explode, and perhaps the most satisfying to do so. George W. Bush is a coward. While George W. Bush is indeed the head of the most powerful military in the world, which he directs with great firmness and boldness, George W. Bush lives in a bubble. He seldom has any interaction with the press, and never speaks at a public event unless the spectators have been carefully screened by the local Republican organizers. If anyone ever gets close enough to ask him a difficult question or say an unpleasant thing, he often gets irritated and says something disparaging that, in effect, shoots the messenger.

Logical thinking about this reality is that while George W. Bush is indeed boldly willing to send troops into grave danger to achieve his goals, he is much too frightened to face the possibility that his views of reality might be wrong, or try to justify his actions at length to the American people. These would be mental injuries, and since he cannot take the risk of experiencing such injury, he can only be thought of as a coward. How can we possibly feel comfortable entrusting the security of this great nation to such a man? End of myth #3.

These are some of the things that Democratic candidates could talk about that would begin to distinguish themselves as thinkers. If they continue to apply themselves, they will be able to develop many, many more syllogisms, and show how the active application of their brains instead of their brawn will help lead this country out of the current difficulties. And they just might have a chance to achieve better results in the next election.