Congress shall make no law abridging flip-flops

“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq…I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
— (incoming) House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D), December 2006

“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level.”
—House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D), January 2007

This liberty keeps us aimed toward progress, toward discovery, and—most importantly—toward the truth. It makes us comfortable with the political middle, as we realize that the middle is the creation of thorough and careful argument. It creates for us an efficient nation. It makes us correct and true. And it firmly positions us on the world’s moral high ground.

If it is possible for a nation to hold a monopoly on reason, then that nation must be America. Entrenched within a brave heritage of candid deliberation, we claim the most informed citizenry. Even other Western states that exercise similar democratic customs of free speech cannot lay claim to the origin of this liberty. In fact, they are often found today to be operating under politically correct censorship laws. “Congress shall make no law” remains distinctly American.

As much as our own political factions can disagree with one another, together they form a just and confident society. When citizens of other nations express their hatred for us by burning our flag, by calling our President “the Devil,” and by chanting “Death to America,” it is our liberty to speak our minds that enables us to stand strong and be sure of one thing—they are wrong.

But with this right to persuade comes an obligation to voice ourselves in one manner or another. The various methods of active citizenship range from running for public office to merely casting a vote. And depending on one’s public status, this responsibility fluctuates. The town carpenter may fulfill his civic duty by simply going to the ballot box. But a gubernatorial candidate must debate his opponents, and reveal to the public his plans for governance.

And since it is by exercising this civic duty that we enable our country’s progress, to ignore it is—at best—irresponsible. And at worst—a destructive act against the United States, as it would inhibit our nation’s grandeur that has resulted from our national pact to continually confront our differences. Imagine what would happen if, all of a sudden, an entire political party decided to forfeit their right to speak their minds. The results would certainly be chaotic. A drift from the truth. Mass confusion. A national loss of moral clarity.

I now turn your attention to the Democratic Party. Particularly over the past six years, Democrats could be accurately described as a pack of political attack dogs conducting a thorough campaign to trounce Republicans. They certainly are not a group that can be accused of betraying their civic obligations by keeping their mouths shut. Ironically, however, they have accomplished the same disastrous consequences by acting in the exact opposite manner. In other words, by saying everything, Democrats have managed to say nothing.

It was immediately following President Bush’s troop-surge pronouncement that Congressman Reyes altered his opinion on such a strategy. And other prominent Democrats—including Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, and Biden—also suspiciously experienced similar changes-of-heart in regards to the surge.

But flip-flopping has become a Democratic pastime. Democrats who advocated social security reform under Bill Clinton’s leadership curiously resisted President Bush’s identical warnings just several years later. And let us face it, John Kerry practically personified the term “flip-flop” during his 2004 bid for the presidency. “At least you know where I stand,” became Bush’s best zinger.

Democratic strategy since 2001 has been this: “Anything Bush is for, we are against it, even if we were previously for it.” Without power and without any ideas, the “Party of the People” decided to obstruct, smear, filibuster, and flip-flop their way into a congressional majority. And their philosophical volatility was pathetically coupled with useless, generic jargon: We need to take back our country! We need a new direction! But the left’s intellectual bankruptcy truly became evident when in 2004 they adopted Anyone But Bush as a campaign slogan. How profound!

We find one of the most egregious examples of Democrats’ intellectual dishonesty during the prelude to the Iraq War. In the lead-up to military conflict Democrats spoke feverishly about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but now they insist that President Bush grossly exaggerated the threat. In September 2002, Senator Ted Kennedy said, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Former Vice President Al Gore declared, “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Resounding the warning was Senator Kerry: “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Senator Clinton added, “[Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”

At the first sign of a hostile insurgency after the fall of Baghdad, Democrats saw a politically opportune moment to ascend to the presidency. So, once again, they attempted to conceal themselves, further bamboozling the American public. Suddenly, Iraq became “Bush’s War.” Senator Kennedy condemned the Bush administration on the Senate floor saying, “Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.” Senator Kerry also attempted to rewrite recent history: “The administration intentionally misled the country into war.” And Al Gore boomed, “He lied to us! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!”

Flip-flopping is not an exercise confined to just a few Democratic leaders—it is the fundamental practice of liberal politicians, whose core principles just do not resonate with the American mainstream. Last year media pundits began to talk about Hillary Clinton’s “move to the middle,” describing her attempt to position herself for a presidential run. Clinton’s “move to the middle” is such a common act of deception from a Democrat that it now gets mentioned without objection. In fact, commentary on liberals posing as moderates is offered with an air of praise and wisdom. Last year the ABC News website The Note stated that Democrats “will be in their hearts for higher taxes, universal health care, a heightened emphasis on civil liberties, and a dramatic and swift reduction of troops from Iraq…[they] just have to hope that the American people don’t find out until February.” “Moving to the middle” is a euphemism for “lying,” but the media speaks of such action as virtuous.

Compiling Democratic dishonesty has an uncanny capacity to explain why seemingly normal Americans could be swayed by extreme accusations such as “war for oil”; why they fail to see the difference between President Bush and Adolf Hitler; why they saddle up with Hollywood radicals; why they are capable of equating Abu Ghraib with Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms; why they fail to remember why they supported the Iraq War in the first place; and why they struggle to find the courage to champion this noble cause until the mission is complete. And, of course, how they could possibly vote for a Democrat.

There is a loss of moral clarity that occurs when an entire political party refuses to honestly voice itself. Most Americans understand that the First Amendment is designed to protect our right to free speech. Democrats think it protects their right to lie.

Travis Rowley ‘02 is a board member for the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity, and the author of Out of Ivy: How a Liberal Ivy Created a Committed Conservative.