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.

[…]

But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings.

Ok, whatever one thinks about the Bush administration or Republican control of the Congress, the idea that we are living in a tyranny that is so bad that another round of massive slaughter of innocents might be a worthwhile outcome is outrageous. It also a remarkable argument based on extreme political hubris: that those who vote for Shaw’s side are voting for freedom and goodness and those who vote for the other side are duped into voting for a tyranny so bad that a little murder to oust them wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

To top all of that off, I would argue that Shaw’s thesis is flawed:

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate

However, the likelihood is that an attack would cause a “rally around the flag effect” which would boost Bush’s numbers and probably help Republicans, who are perceived as tougher on terrorism. Let’s follow the basic logic: if one feels insecure because of possible attack by terrorists, which party is one likely to go with, the party perceived us as hawkish on the subject, or the party perceived of as dovish on the subject? Granted, Shaw is banking on the idea that President, and by extension the Republican Party, would be blamed for the attack, but that is hardly a certainty. Could a scenario emerge where the President would be blamed, yes? However, it is more likely that an attack would give the President the chance to appear presidential. And if we are talking pure politics here, which party would that likely help?

Or, if we look at individual congressional races, which type of candidate would an attack help, a Ned Lamont type, or a Joe Lieberman type? Clearly: the Lamont types would be out the window.

However, Shaw seems to think that a Democratic majority will result in much sunshine and roses, accomplishing the following:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2024. A regime change that would:

Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;

Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;

More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;

Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;

Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;

Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;

Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.

Oddly enough, this stuff didn’t happen the last time we had a unified Democratic government in Washington, but I suppose we will ignore that for the nonce. Of course, when one looks at Shaw’s logical skills (e.g., Democrats in Congress = Serious Gun Control = Thousands of lives saved, QED–because Goodness knows that these problems are precisely that simple), then I suppose we can understand how he reached his “new 9/11 = Glorious Policy Outcomes” line of “reasoning.”
And btw, if Shaw is certain that these outcomes will take place, and that they are worthwhile, how about arguing for them in public and persuading people to vote for the Democrats, rather than hoping for mass murder to change their minds? That’s how we do it in democracy.

The ultimate irony is that he thinks that his party is the party of goodness, and the Reps are the party of tyranny, yet to get his party into the majority he is half-daydreaming for 9/11 part two.
(Of course, I guess this is what one gets when one has a guy whose expertise is IP Telephony write about politics).