|
Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of “The Path to 9/11,” has an excellent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The purpose of the article is to describe and rightly ridicule the political hysteria that his TV movie generated from the left. Nowrasteh also lavishes praise on ABC for its refusal to yield to the left’s pressure to squash the film.
While I’m on record as being discomfited by the film’s conflations et al., Nowrasteh’s article and the whole “The Path to 9/11” controversy beg the question, Why was the left so heavily invested in defending the Clinton legacy? The Clinton legacy on terrorism is literally indefensible. The results were undeniably dreadful, and the efforts by the administration were undeniably indifferent (at best).
One could of course say the same about the Bush administration’s efforts prior to 9/11, and Nowrasteh’s movie pretty much did. And yet the right didn’t seem to mind. Since the Clinton administration now belongs to the history books and the Bush administration is an ongoing concern, the differing reactions are a point of interest.
The obvious explanation for the disparate reactions is that the Democratic Party and liberalism remain in the exact same place they were prior to 9/11. Since the Reagan administration, the Democrats have been the party of knee-jerk opposition, existing solely to thwart Republican designs. Any initiatives the Democrats have conjured have inevitably been of the penny-ante variety like school uniforms or putting an end to the national scourge known as drive-by deliveries.
The Bush administration was transformed by 9/11, and rightly so. The Democrats remain even today in a determined state of stasis. When Republicans see a recounting of the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing, we feel it doesn’t matter because things have since changed. Dramatically.
When the Democrats see the irresolute nature of the Clinton administration portrayed, it hits home.
Comments? Complaints? Email me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|