Nation-Building >> Liberal Joy vs. Liberal Fear | return to front page

Most liberals are overjoyed about Al Franken and Howard Dean. After all, both men are finally succeeding where the Democratic Party has failed for years: landing some punches on George W. and his right-wing spear-throwers. [...]

It's next to impossible to find a lefty columnist or talking head from inside the Beltway who's said nice things about the two Democratic firebrands. Instead, they fret that Dean has a "temper." (The New Republic recently ran a cover of Dean which made him look like Hitler circa 1939 -- all it lacked was for someone to pencil in a little mustache on his upper lip.)

"Liberal scriveners may improve their team's political lot by matching the conservative investment in liar-liar stock, but it will come at the expense of their credibility," says Slate's Jack Shafer in an exquisite summation of the punditocracy's conventional wisdom.

It's a curious argument -- especially since, just a couple paragraphs higher, Shafer concedes that Franken "accurately document[s] the right's most egregious lies." So let me rebut it: To attack a lie is not the same as to tell a lie. Would Shafer prefer that Democrats just sit back and get pounded for a few more years, secure in the knowledge that, even though they're getting their asses kicked, at least they're right?

That tactic didn't work so well in 2000. And yet, it's exactly the attitude that many liberal pundits take towards both Dean and Franken. The passion of these men makes them queasy. [...] The pundits wince in distaste and pray for John Kerry to get back on track. Why are they so afraid of liberals who fight back? [...]

Bill Clinton's rare genius, on the other hand, was that he combined both passion and intelligence. It's possible, I suppose, that Democratic candidates could win without the kind of passion that Franken and Dean manifest. (Al Gore did.) But if they're not passionate, what's the point?