Zellotry
A critic could credibly describe Senator Zell Miller's speech to the Republican Convention as angry, misleading, or both. But to dwell on either the tone or veracity of Miller's text somehow misses the point given the scene that unfolded at Madison Square Garden last night. In an address originally billed as a critique of John Kerry's national security credentials, Miller essentially branded the Democrats as traitors because they haven't fallen in line with President Bush on all matters of national security. It was one of the most vile political speeches in recent American history, every bit as offensive as Pat Buchanan's infamous call in 1992 for "religious war" and, perhaps, a little more disturbing. Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy.
For several days now, Republicans have hammered away at John Kerry's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, arguing that he's too indecisive, too dishonest, or simply too wimpy to keep the country safe from terrorists. And make no mistake: That's a perfectly legitimate claim to make in a presidential campaign, whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, arguing over which presidential candidate would do a better job of protecting America is precisely the argument America should be having this year.
But Miller went well beyond questioning Kerry's leadership ability or philosophy. Miller questioned his motives. Citing the story of Republican Wendell Wilkie, who in 1940 embraced Franklin Roosevelt's call for a peacetime draft because "he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue," Miller asked why Democrats had failed to show their president similar deference. "Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?" Then Miller quickly supplied an answer: "Today's Democratic leaders," he said, are "motivated more by partisan politics than by national security."
Never mind all the inconvenient facts that get in the way of that narrative, like the fact that Democrats actually showed Bush enormous deference after 9/11, bestowing bipartisan support upon both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. (Remember, it was precisely Democrats' acquiescence to the Iraq war that fueled Howard Dean's insurgency.) And never mind that, on those occasions when Democrats did fight the president, it was precisely because Democrats believed their approach (spending more on homeland defense, using ground troops in Tora Bora, building a stronger international coalition, etc.) would actually make America safer.
Never mind all of that because the point of Miller's speech wasn't to answer specific questions about President Bush's foreign policy (perhaps because those questions are increasingly difficult for Miller and the president's defenders to answer). It was to declare such questions beyond the boundaries of respectable debate. It was to brand dissent--whether by politicians, commentators, or activists--an act of anti-Americanism, and to do so with as much blood-drenched imagery as possible:
Quote:...it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. No one should dare to even think about being the commander-in-chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
Are there people on the left of American politics who think America is the problem? Sure. Are some even hostile to American troops? A few, maybe. But to level such accusations at Kerry, who volunteered for frontline service in Vietnam and won medals for his heroic performance there, seems absurd on its face. (It's even more absurd in the case of such prominent Democrats as Max Cleland, Daniel Inoye, Bob Kerrey, and Charlie Rangel, who suffered serious wounds in battle.) Alas, it's probably no more absurd than making the ultimate accusation of treason against Kerry, that he'd hand the reigns of American power over to a foreign country: "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. ... This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?"
Of course, Kerry made it quite clear at the Democratic Convention that "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." But, really, what's the point in even arguing about what Kerry said? Miller obviously could care less about actual facts. His intention was to paint all of Bush's critics with one broad, dark paint brush--to declare any attack on the president or his policies, whatever the source, an attack on America itself. Thus the signature line: "Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief."
Note the curious phrasing, "bring down our commander-in-chief." In the United States we don't "bring down" our leaders. We vote them out of office. And before we do that, we ask them hard questions about the way they conduct their business. Miller may not agree; judging from the zesty reaction he received from the delegates last night, neither may most officials in the Republican Party. But they would all do well to remember the wisdom one of their own heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, expressed a century ago: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
