Your Weekly Rush

Well Trent Lott is still with us. And although Rush's support of Trent Lott has been rather lukewarm he has certainly enjoyed pointing out Democratic hypocricy on this issue. He commented, "We have the Adam Clymers and E J. Dionnes of the world failing to report that Strom was a Democrat when he stood for segregation. (See: Clymer Rips Lott, GOP New Clymer).

"Examples of Democrat racism are endless. The Kennedy's wiretapped Dr. King. Algore's dad stood against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - 80% of House Republicans and only 61% of Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, 82% of the GOP and only 69% of Democrats did. I think Bill Clinton's being silent on this because he recently paid tribute to J. William Fulbright."

In other words, Rush feels comfortable comparing the Democrats of 1964 or 1948 with the Democrats today. So long as it makes the Democrats look bad, he's all for it. Of course what Rush convienently moves out is how both the Democrats and Republicans have changed since 1948. President Roosevelt had already begun the change, by reaching out to black voters in the North (those parts of the nation they were permitted to vote). Truman, continued this trend. The Kennedy's record on Civil Rights is admittadly rather weak, but Johnson's was very strong. The Democratic party of 1948 and the party of 2002 are not the same on Civil Rights and only a foolish foolish man would say that they were. (I need hardly mention the Republican party's decision to seek out the segregationist White as a voting block).

But lets take Rush's theory at face value. The party is the party is the party. The republican party of 1948 of 1936 of 1890 is the same. It's the same party, same principles. Why not? It doesn't make any sense, but who cares? I can score a few points at Rush's expense.

Rush practically froths at the mouth when it comes to what he calles Appeasers and "the appeasement crowd." By this he means all those who question the impending war with Iraq. Of course the term Appeasement is totally bizarre in this context. The term arose in Inter-war Europe where England (particularly) and other Europeon powers acquiesed to Hitler's desires to increase his terroritory. In other words the appeasers gave Hitler concessions in hopes that he would not attack them. The policy stands as a pitiable failure that strengthened a vicious tyrant and weakened the west.

So what concessions do Modern Appeasers offer Saddam. Well we aren't ready to kill him. That's about it. Are we offering him land? No. Are we giving him anything? No. The situation is akin to two muggers holding up a guy (admitadly the guy in this case is a vicious monster). The "Appeasers" say "Do as we say or we'll blow your head off." Rush would rather hear, "We are going to blow your head off no matter what."

So lets look at the Republican foreign policy from before World War 1 to the outbreak of World War II. Perhaps a quote from President Roosevelt will help enlighten us.

"I would not undo, if I could, the efforts I made to prevent war from the moment it was threatened and to restrict the area of carnage, down to the last minute. I do not now soften the condemnation expressed by Secretary Hull and myself from time to time for acts of aggression that have wiped out ancient liberty-loving, peace-pursuing countries which had scrupulously maintained neutrality. I do not recant the sentiments of sympathy with all free peoples resisting such aggression, or begrudge the material aid that we have given to them. I do not regret my consistent endeavor to awaken this country to the menace for us and for all we hold dear.

"I have pursued these efforts in the face of appeaser fifth columnists who charged me with hysteria and war-mongering. But I felt it my duty, my simple, plain, inescapable duty, to arouse my countrymen to the danger of the new forces let loose in the world.

"So long as I am President, I will do all I can to insure that that foreign policy remain our foreign policy."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940

So what party do you suppose those Isolationist fifth columnists were? Well, I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. While some Republicans of the time saw the danger Hitler posed, many more opposed all involvement in the war. They opposed supporting the Allies, believing that such support would drag us into war. And such views are still in the Republican party. Although the most prominent spokesman for isolationism, Patrick Buchannan, has left the Republican party, there are others of his beliefs still within it.

As fun as this is, though, it's not that important. I think it's probably better to judge the Republican Party as it is today--try to figure out what it stands for, and go from there. And the same with the Democratic Party.