Faux Fear And Loathing Among Liberals

Liberal Democrats love to tell conservative Republicans which GOP candidate might appeal to them and independents. The ploy frequently sways enough voters in primaries so that the "acceptable" candidate wins the nomination. And then, just as with Lucy and Charlie Brown, the football is pulled away during the general election. Can you say "John McCain?"

Democrats love to talk about their favorite Republican "mavericks," and moderates and how dangerous they could be for the choice of the Democratic Party. Then, like clockwork, the day after the Republican nominee is chosen he becomes an object of low humor, derision, and angry denunciations by the same Democrats who had praised him. They warn Republicans that if their candidate is too conservative, he (or she) just can't win. They demonstrate their faux fear of the moderate/liberal Republican candidate by advising Republicans that if they nominate so-and-so, the Republicans might just win. It reminds me of Bre'r Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch.

So now I have to consider why some liberals are warning their own about Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. There had been talk among the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party that Daniels might be the John McCain for 2012. Hendrik Herzberg of The New Yorker had given the governor McCain-like reluctant praise, writing: "He doesn't throw off the crackles of craziness. I found his effect reassuring. When it comes to red meat, he seems to be a vegetarian." Uh, oh. Daniels is sane. That could be dangerous for Democrats. Let's let the Republicans know we're scared of him. Maybe they'll nominate him, and then we can hit him with the switcheroo. Same stuff, different package.

Michael Kinsley of Politico was an early proponent of "fearing" Daniels. Said Kinsley: "the blue-eyed governor would be better than any of the other Republicans who are running to stop Obama from winning a second term." Kinsley couldn't resist at least one "he's white" comment, but you get the idea.

That piece was followed by "maverick/moderate" phony praise for Daniels in the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. So imagine my surprise when I see the age-old mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, The New Republic, warning its readers that Daniels may not be the McCain choice after all. "Don't be fooled" said TNR. Daniels had recently announced that he would not campaign on social issues. He told reporters: "We still need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean." Some right wing bloggers jumped all over Daniels for that. Still, TNR believes it knows the truth: "But savvier and more influential voices on the right know better than to think Daniels would run as a moderate Republican."

So instead of announcing its fake fear of Daniels to Republicans, it announced its real fear of Daniels to the Democratic faithful. TNR trotted out a bloody litany of Daniels atrocities. He was president of Eli Lilly, one of the largest drug companies in the world. He initiated the largest private-school voucher program in the nation. He took donations from the Koch Brothers. He has stated that he would sign a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. He abolished the right of Indiana teachers to bargain collectively on anything except wages. He supports Paul Ryan's proposed federal tax cuts. God help us all, he even privatized a state highway.

TNR then goes on to list the frightening collection of fascists and fascist organizations that have spoken well of Daniels's record. Dick Armey and his friends in the Tea Party. The Weekly Standard. Arthur Brooks and the American Enterprise Institute. The American Spectator. And the lowest of the low, National Review. As an example of liberal-think gone wrong in the past, the author brought up the favorable biography of McCain by liberal Elizabeth Drew. The book was praised by liberal historian and FDR biographer Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Then the magazine went on to list the post-primary vision of their previous favorite McCain:

"The celebrated maverick chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate, embraced a Muslim-bashing preacher, and accused Barack Obama of running a radical education foundation with Bill Ayers." But at least McCain had some bipartisan legislative accomplishments on his record before he became the presidential candidate. Yep, McCain-Feingold comes to mind. Still, TNR can find no such accomplishments for Daniels. The problem here with TNR's logic is that McCain did exactly what the "fearful" left was hoping to engineer--he lost.

By logical extension, if McCain with all his liberal support turned fascist after getting the nomination, imagine what will happen if Daniels gets the nomination. He'll be a super-fascist. Or so TNR appears to believe. Says TNR: "For Daniels [unlike McCain], bipartisanship seems to consist of seducing journalists at what Hertzberg describes as a 'gilded age' mansion." Beware--the end is near! "But if he does go lunatic [Daniels once mused "what sane person would run for president?], the policies Daniels espouses will be no better than those of his GOP rivals."

Completing the thought, TNR adds: "In order to win the nomination, all in the running will have to take stands even to the right of Reagan, who as president was heedless of deficits and left Medicaid and Medicare alone. A good salesman like Daniels may be able to make the conservative creed sound 'reassuring.' But, in reality, he will have no desire to alter the harmful doctrines of the faith." In other word, TNR believes that Daniels is a truly dangerous conservative threat to Obama rather than a fake conservative like McCain. Rather than try to ambush him after the primary voters have made their choice, it's better to warn off less-sophisticated Democrats now who might think he's another McCain.

I'm certainly not going to make my decision about which candidate to support based on what liberals tell us about who would be their most dangerous adversary. And I'm not ready to support a candidate based on who TNR considers to be a genuine conservative. But the simple fact that TNR considers Daniels to be too dangerous to deserve even faint praise makes me want to take a longer look at him.

Andrew and I have both written about Daniels previously. We have discussed his positives, his negatives, and his "questionables" in order to help our readers (and ourselves) make up our minds. Andrew's posts can be found at Conservatives Should Embrace Indiana Abortion Bill and Mitch Daniels--Conservative?. Mine can be found at Mr. Show, Meet Mr. Go and Who's In Charge Here?.

As we move through the early election season, I'd like to remind each of us of two things. 1. The perfect is the enemy of the good. 2. There was only one Ronald Reagan.