Writes Hugh Hewitt on his Townhall blog:
Thus it is simply true: Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
These kinds of statements vex me, just as blanket statements that voting for Republicans is some sort of vote to punish the poor or a vote for racism or hatred, or authoritarianism or whatever.
And yes, Hewitt is saying something that is just as hateful as some of the things listed in the above paragraph, and that are said by some partisan Democrats about those who vote Republican. Hewitt’s statement is such that it states that any vote for a Democrat is a vote for someone who might as well be considered a traitor, or at a minimum for someone who really has a reckless and knowing disregard for the safety of the citizens of the United States. (If a vote for a Democrat is a vote for defeat, then isn’t that a traitorous vote by this logic?)
This is all utter nonsense and is patently insulting to roughly 50% of the voters in the United States. Insulting rhetoric, while perhaps comforting and entertaining to those who deploy it, is not useful if what one wants to do is actually persuade and influence public policy. Further, none of this strikes me as being within the spirit of democracy and pluralism that we are supposedly wanting to spread around the globe.
Why not engage ideas and issues rather than simply slinging vitriol?
Why not at least acknowledge that one’s particular partisan camp may not be 100% correct on all that it says?
To take Hewitt’s statement seriously is to accept the notion that the Republican (and really, the administration) view on security policy is essentially sacrosanct and the opposition position is essentially sacralige.
Given that I find it acceptable to ask questions about one’s religion and to wonder if the clergy knows what they are talking about, surely it is acceptable to question mere politicians and their partisan allies.
This kind of statement, like Vice President Cheney’s statement that voting for Ned Lamont is an aid to al Qaeda, is simply unhelpful, unnecessary and ultimately disturbing because they elevate the utterer of the phrase to the level of near perfection as they explain the rightness of their party’s position.
Public policy positions have not been written in granite by the finger of God and therefore no one ought to be running around as those they are a prophet proclaiming the inerrant truth of their position while proclaiming all who disagree with them as apostates.
But, alas, there is an awful lot of that going around from all partisan positions these days.
And btw: the last time I checked, the Democrats may be the partisan opponents of Republicans, but they aren’t the enemies of the state.
Sphere: Related Content
Democrats = Traitors?
Hugh Hewitt: “Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.”
Steven Taylor: “[T]he last time I checked, the Democrats may be the partisan opponents of Republicans, but they aren’t the enemies of t…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 9:29 am
While I would agree that Hewitt’s statement is painting with a broad brush, I do not see it as “hateful” in any way. While many salt of the earth Democrats do not consider themselves to be Enemies of the State, the truth is that over the last several years most of their elected representatives have been.
The Democrats have opposed the Patriot Act, opposed the surveillance that has probably prevented multiple attacks on our homeland, and have gone to unprecedented lengths to obstruct and hamper the ability of this President and the Republicans to wage and win this war for the survival of Western Civilization.
Perhaps if Hewitt had modified his remarks with “the majority of the elected Democrats, particularly the Soros-Dean-MoveOn wing, are Enemies of the State” it would be more palatable to the word-parsers of the blogosphere. Never mind that the end result of a Democratic win this fall would be impeachment proceedings against a President at war, pressure to surrender and/or appease our enemies overseas, higher taxes to kill the recovery, and the hampering of our efforts to track murderous Islamist terrorists. Personally I see that as a “vote for vulnerability”.
This Democratic party is not the party of Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, and Scoop Jackson. Hewitt might well have worded his statement differently to more effectively communicated the actual message, but in practical terms he is absolutely spot-on.
I myself am guilty from time to time of very blunt talk on my own blog. Yes, it can be “divisive”; on the other hand it is perhaps better to verbally slap my fellow citizens across the face to wake them up to reality, than to have them commit suicide this fall by casting a vote that might someday result in an attack on our soil eclipsing 9/11. Maybe–just maybe–Hewitt is trying to wake some people up to the stark reality that they are too unwilling to state openly: this (Democratic) “Emporor” really is NOT wearing any clothes.
Comment by DiscerningTexan — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 11:47 am
If you had read (not just perused) Mr Hewitt’s comment, you would see that he has qualified his statement based on the responses (or lack thereof) of ALL Democrats in the recent Sixth Circuit Court’s Decision on Wiretapping.
If this were a criminal case, the police would be justified in holding them responsible as “accomplices after the fact”. Mr. Hewitt simply places blame for this unsupportable opinion squarely where it belongs.
There is virtually no legal support (on either side of the aisle)for this “Decision” other than in partisan Democratic circles.
Nuff Said.
Comment by DiogenesRevisited — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 12:07 pm
If you set aside the dispute over the judge’s admittedly weak legal reasoning, I think you’d find that a much larger segment of the population than just “partisan Democratic circles” thinks the NSA wiretapping program is probably illegal absent explicit congressional authorization.
Comment by Chris Lawrence — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 12:29 pm
Hysterical Reaction to…Common Sense
I just left a comment on PoliBlog, who has taken exception to Hugh Hewitt’s statement…
Trackback by The Discerning Texan — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 12:29 pm
[…] (Kinda)
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 5:33 pm
I see that because James Joyner noted my post from this morning that Hugh Hewitt responds to me (after a fashion) in an update to his original post […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Hugh Hewitt Responds (Kinda) — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 5:37 pm
[…] ck. Yes, we are at war. But we are not at war with the American people.“ Posts like this one by Dr. Steven Taylor, prove that some conservatives don’t but what Hugh is pus […]
Pingback by A Newer World » Blog Archive » Straw, Lies, and Venality — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 7:26 pm
“Expect a major retreat in the war on Islamic fascism across many fronts if the Dems frenzy their way to a majority in either body…’
Right, Hugh. Especially since the delusional half-wit who runs the country and his gang of mentally-retarded Neo-cons have been so effective at the so-called War on Terror. Plots are foiled ABROAD, suspected terrorists apprehended ABROAD, by governments which are clealy a lot more adept at catching terrorists than their U.S. grotesque counterparts. Here in the U.S., the so-called “terrorists” that are ever arrested are bunches of hapless morons like those in Florida, or a bunch of kids with cell phones wo are subsequently released.
We may not know what the Democrats will do if they regain a majority, but we definitely know what Bush and his cohorts have done in the past six years: fuck up everything they ever laid their incompetent and greedy hands on.
By the way, Hugh, got Bin Laden yet? Guess your little war on Islamic fascism is not working too well, now, is it?
The Democrats “frenzy” their way to a majority? Have you forgotten that voters put people in office?
Your Decider and his henchmen at all levels of government have nothing to show for but a list of disasters, including their much-touted War on Terror. The only platform these incompetent morons have is a combination of fear and racism.
Comment by Evil Progressive — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 7:29 pm
Wow, a moderate Republican. I didn’t think there were any left.
Hewitt’s post is simply a reflection of the attitudes of those who run the modern GOP. That sort of baseless attack (voting for Democrats == voting for terrorists) managed to barely win them the last few elections. Keep doing it until it stops working!
They’ll only stop it once the base quits showing up, or reasonable conservatives like you quit voting for them. Or even better: when moderate Republicans start voting for Democrats.
The GOP created this hyper-partisan environment, and it won’t get any better until they are out of power. If you are really interested in more civilized, bipartisan political discourse, I strongly recommend you vote for as many Democrats as you can in 2024/2008.
Comment by Colin — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 8:35 pm
Um. You’re absolutely right. And you’re a Republican. And I haven’t said that to a Republican since, like, the late 1970’s. And yes, I am a Democrat.
That’s… that’s… reason to hope.
And I am not meaning to be snarky about Republicans coming around, but rather than dialog is possible where there is actual understanding that the other side is evil.
Thanks, big guy.
Comment by peter swiderski — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 9:59 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I have two words for you: “Well said!”
Discerning Texan,
“The Democrats have opposed the Patriot Act, opposed the surveillance that has probably prevented multiple attacks on our homeland, and have gone to unprecedented lengths to obstruct and hamper the ability of this President and the Republicans to wage and win this war for the survival of Western Civilization.”
Name one person who has opposed surveillance, in and of itself. Go ahead, name one. What the Democrats, and many others, are upset about is not that activites like wiretapping are taking place, but that the Bush Adminsitration sees fit to do so outside of the law. Either the USA is a nation of laws or it isn’t. Surveillance is fine and it is obviously a critical component of the war on terror, as it is in more commonplace police activity. However, individuals like yourself seem to want to grant our government unlimited surveillance powers. You seem to want to do away with a system of checks and balances that seeks to ensure that when our government does engage in surveillance activities, it is done so for a legitimate reason.
Do you understand the concept of legal precedent? If we establish, legally, under the Bush Administration, that the government is not subject to any legal oversight in its surveillance activities, then we open a Pandora’s Box of potential abuses of otherwise much needed surveillance activity.
How much do you trust Big Government? Bear in mind that if you cede these powers to the Bush Administration, then eventually another administration, maybe even a Hillary Rodham Clinton Administration (yikes!) will be able to use or abuse them. That’s the key; it is in Democrats’ best interests, Republicans’ best interests, and regular Americans’ best interests that a check on legitimacy of government’s use of power be maintained. Please explain how you think that ensuring the legitimacy of the government’s use of surveillance compromises the war on terror.
“…on the other hand it is perhaps better to verbally slap my fellow citizens across the face to wake them up to reality, than to have them commit suicide this fall by casting a vote that might someday result in an attack on our soil eclipsing 9/11.”
For the record, what exactly did Bush do to prevent 9/11? Did he think he could scare them off with a five-week vacation? I don’t recall Clinton having the benefit of Presidential Daily Briefings outlining terrorists’ intents to attack the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, or the ‘93 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Please explain how a vote for any particular candidate would equal suicide. Further, please explain why you think an American citizen would choose suicide.
Finally, who is the Democratic “Emporor” (sic) to whom you refer?
Comment by JML — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 11:29 pm
Hey, I appreciate a Republican who doesn’t sound like a Cult member, unable to even question Bush in the slightest. I feel for you though, it’s bound to earn you the Hate O’ the Right. You’ll scare them…they’ll think you have principles.
Comment by Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 1:33 am
I agree with your position. We need less emotion, less mindless cheerleading of whatever our particular political side is, and more cold, rational thought. In my opinion, the pursuit of the unitary executive by the Bush Administration has damaged both our pursuit of the islamo-fascists and the fabric of our republic. Major portions of the PATRIOT act have been declared unconstitutional, the process for holding ‘enemy non-combantants’ in Gitmo has been declared unconstitutional, and now the wiretapping program is in trouble. Meanwhile, DHS has roller rinks listed as national terrorist targets.
It’s never been clear to me that these approaches are the best way, the only way, or the most effective to win. In fact, they seem damaging to our short and long term insterests as a nation.
The blame should not be on the courts for upholding the rules, but for the administration for breaking them.
I’m not ready to abandon our constitution in favor of a fascist police state because of a few crazy jihadis that have no country, no army, no GDP, that live as parasites on the Muslem community. It’s time to get some guts and stop living in fear.
What positive suggestions might be offered?
1) How about securing our borders (northern and southern)
2) How about inspecting more cargo containers
3) How about increasing security at chemical facilities.
4) How about reducing the amount of petrodollars that are used to fund the terrorists.
Comment by Mark — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 12:20 pm
Thank you for a true breath of fresh air and sanity. I hope whatever you have caught is spreading…
Comment by zen_less — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 12:47 pm
Calling Democrats traitors is flat-out wrong.
It implies that they were on America’s side in the first place.
Comment by nixonknew — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 1:43 pm
Dear Dicerning Texan.
I was going to answer to your wild remarks about Democrats, but I can see that there has been plenty of people in this blog that had adressed your complete lack of “Dicerning” powers.
I will nevertheless take this opportunity to kindly suggest that at least you change your name to the “Clueless Texan”. Is more appropiate.
Come to think of it, you should stop using the name “Texan”. I am a Texan so what? Is that suposed to make me more Macho, a taugh Hombre, Country He Alfa Man, or what? I don’t see any one on the blog calling himself the “The He Man Hawaiian”, or “The Californinan Terminator”.
Finally, I noticed that Right Wingers like Mr. Texas here, has lost the apetite for a good spirited interchange of ideas when it comes to their so called war on terror, and Iraq. They just put up their ignorant generalisations and latest taking points and then evaporate.
Care to have an exchange? Lets start by pleace explaining to all “Traitor” Democrats why you patriotic Republican and though Hombres that you are never call for the return of the draft? Who do you think is going to do all your fighting, Mexicans?. Why are you not asking for higher taxes to pay for your so called war on terrorism, afeter all you think is free? The Chinese are the ones giving us the financing like that idea?. Why are you ignoring the numbers that show a drematic increase in terrorist attacks all over the world since Bush started having it out with a bunch of mad Mullas? Numbers don’t lie or spin. Why if our policy in Iraq “starting a war of Prevention” was so good and justifiable now we don’t use in Iran…. Remember Mush Room Cloud Rice scaring the hell out of people with “You don’t want a much room cloud be the smoking gun” … So what gives? do we or don’t we Mr. Texan…. How fast will a liar fall? faster than a man with only one good leg.
You think you are better than Democrats at fighting terrorist? . Frankly Mr. Texan this is not a contest of mine is bigger than yours, or at least you better hope is not, because your’s is down to a very pathetic size as the polls can attest.
Comment by gil — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 2:35 pm
Excellent post, Dr. Steve!
Discerning Texan:
Where’s Osama?
Comment by The Liberal Avenger — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 2:48 pm
I say let’s just trash both parties and start from scratch.
Comment by Colleen — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 5:27 pm
nixonnew.
I don’t know if Nixon knew or not, but I can tell by your comment that you don’t know much about Liberals.
Let me guess, all the people in your town population 150 are Republicans, and related to each other.
You get together at night in front of a fire (Power goes out at 6 PM) and scare yourselves with tales of Liberals running around the swamps but naked in ‘59.
I can hear you guys now: ” Listn Y’all My Daddy used to tell my two headed cousin Ed, bless his soul how on full moon nights Lib’s would come out of lake NixonRegan to talk to commies droping from the sky. Tho’se dirty bastards want our beauteful way of life destroyed, I tell you all they do. This keeps up I won’t be able to marry my first caus’n Gertrude!!!
Comment by gil — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 6:35 pm
I agree with Hugh’s statement in the context that it was written. It’s obvious that the any moderate Democrat is silenced by the people who control the party.
It’s one thing to criticize policy. Fine, I don’t like everything Bush does and I didn’t like much that Clinton did, but it’s quite a different thing to UNDERMINE the country to get your way. The anti-war, anti-Bush, and (yes) the anti-US democrats are actually children who are whining. I have two kids and the parallels between them and how the Democrats conduct themselves is amazing. This is my variation of Hugh’s context and therefore, he is right: the the current crop of Democrats are unqualified to run the country.
Comment by Al — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 10:50 pm
Al,
Who, exactly is undermining America to get their way? Why do you think that they would do so, especially given that they themselves are, presumably, American?
You made a number of unsupported attacks on Democrats. Prove how Democrats are anti-US. Prove how Democrats are unqualified to run the country. If you want to participate in an adult exchange of ideas, you have to provide more than mere name-calling and vacant, vapid accusations. If you are going to make accusations that call into question individuals’ patriotism and degrees to which they care about America regarding who is qualified to lead America and who is deliberately undermining the country, you had better offer some legitimate evidence or you end up looking like a partisan stooge at best, or a moron at worst.
I hope you’re truly happy with the Bush Administration.
Comment by JML — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 2:58 am
Thank you for your thoughtful post — it helped offset the disturbing bumper sticker I saw while driving to work this morning … “Help Fight the War on Terror - Terminate a Democrat”. It’s rhetoric like Hugh Hewitt’s that does nothing but escalate the animosity towards Democrats. He may not come right out and suggest killing Democrats but isn’t that what one does to “traitors”? (I’ve lived through a lot in my 58 years but I never thought I’d see the day when members of one political party think it’s perfectly fine to espouse killing members of the opposing political party and are willing to “advertise” it for all to see.) If Democrats didn’t love America they wouldn’t be so outraged at the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act and the president’s surveillance programs. When I think about the billions and billions of dollars that have been poured into the Iraq war, billions that could have and should have been used to bolster OUR infrastructure (ports, nuclear plants, water facilities, chemical plants, etc.), I’m going to speak out (and I’m going to vote for people who agree with me). If any Republicans think that that makes me a traitor, then the problem is with you, not with me.
Comment by 3reddogs — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 9:34 am
[…] ulnerability.” Some on his own side have considered Hewitt. Steven Taylor describes Hewittian Hysteria: “This is all utter nonsense and is patently insulting to roughly 50% of the voters […]
Pingback by The Heretik » Blog Archive » Now Hear This — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 9:46 am
Interesting post, and comments. Thanks.
One point that seems to come up in the posts like Mr. Hewitt’s and those of some of the commenters here (e.g., Discerning Texan, Nixonknew) is that opposition not to the idea that we must confrom Islamic terrorism, but to the particular fashion in which the Bush administration has chosen to fight the war, is prima facie evidence of cowardice, anti-Americanism, traitorousness, etc. I think that it is a bad moment for our democracy when people are attacked as being seditionists or haters of their country for doing what democracy demands: stating opinions, questioning our policies, considering other options. People must be able to do these things; it’s what our First Amendment is about, and it’s a big part of the vision our founding fathers had for this republic. This is how things have to work; the big issues (the war on Islamicist terror qualifies) have to be hashed out in the public sphere. If I think the use of torture is a problem, I’m obligated to say something. If you feel otherwise, you are obligated to do the same. If I think that the FISA statute governs electronic surveillance of overseas communications, and provides adequate tools and oversight, then I should speak out against a program that appears to side step those statutory obligations. If you support these issues, stand up and say so.
Some might say, “You hate America” for opposing the President right now, but their opponents could equally easily say “You hate America” right back, because they believe that the President has betrayed the rule of law in his secret policies, and has betrayed our moral foundations by endorsing (tacitly or otherwise) the torture of other human beings.
I don’t think that the finger-pointing and name-calling gets us anywhere. Let’s have the substantive debate instead.
Comment by justin case — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 9:54 am
Steve Taylor:
Thank you. As a liberal Democrat, I’ve come to expect all conservative opinion to be in lockstep with Malkin, Hewitt, Coulter, et al. It’s quite refreshing to see someone on the right side of the aisle come to the realization that the 50 percent of Americans who voted against Bush love this country as much as you do.
As you’ve seen in the comments above, we care about security, about economic prosperity, about the rule of law. In so many ways, when I lay out what it is that we’re trying to accomplish, I often find myself describing something akin to a Republican position, circa 1965-75.
It’s hard to believe that anyone who adopts the label “conservative” can be so fully supportive of warrantless searches, warrantless surveillance, skyrocketing deficits, a myopic energy policy, needless foreign engagements, open borders, and the rest of it. Those aren’t conservative positions - they’re radical.
If we can manage to nab at least one house of Congress this November, we’ll start the long, painful trek back to an America that we all recognize, and one of which we can be rightly proud. And to do this, we’ll have to work together. Vilifying each other with caricatures doesn’t help. Posts likes yours today do.
Comment by The Raven — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 10:20 am
Hi, just found your site via the “Daou Report” at salon.com. First, thanks for your reasonable objections to Hewitt’s generalizations. Secondly, I’m going to write Mr. Daou to suggest he not list you as a “right wing” blog. You appear to me to be much more moderate than many of the other sites listed on that side of the page. Perhaps this will truly lead to more civilized discourse, and less flame wars from the Right and the Left. I appreciate that not all of us are “wingnuts” or “moonbats.” I’ll keep checking in with you…we need to get our information (and opinions) from a variety of sources, especially these days.
Comment by Guy Caballero — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 2:29 pm
Guy,
Thanks for the note and the kind words.
Part of problem is that the left/right dichotomy is overly confining. No doubt on some issues I would be considered quite conservative, on other libertarian, and on other possibly even liberal–at least if we are going to use contemporary US political vernacular.
If I had to pick a label, I would prefer classical liberal.
In this particular instance (the Hewitt business) my aims are neither partisan nor ideological–rather, I am simply interested in a calmer, more rational dialog. The issue shouldn’t be labelling one’s opponent, but rather a serious discourse about ideas.
Cheers,
S
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 3:04 pm
[…] Last Saturday I started my blogging day commenting on what I thought was partisan extremism from the Rightish side of American politics, this Saturday let start from the Leftish side and the bizarre musings of Russell Shaw at HuffPo who entitles his piece I Hope And Pray We Don’t Get Hit Again-BUT. In the piece he makes argues that it might not be so bad if the US experiences another 911esque attack just before the elections this year, because it would help the Democrats win: I hope and pray we don’t get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much. […] […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Just When You Thought Partisan Lunacy Couldn’t Sink any Lower… — Saturday, August 26, 2024 @ 9:11 am
[…] Hugh Hewitt for his undying partisan hackery. (Also here). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Happy Festivus! — Saturday, December 23, 2024 @ 10:51 am