I.

Europeans have a terrific system for managing politically-sensitive disputes: They ignore them. And, better still, they ignore the desires of those on one side of the issue entirely.

When it comes to tough political decisions that emotionally animate a sizable minority -- or even majority -- of voters, Europeans have "evolved" a system whereby they simply deem those who are on the "wrong," meaning "right," side of an issue as "politically extreme," "racist," etc.

This system has the great advantage of suppressing all politics on sensitive issues. Those who want to restrict immigration from Muslim countries are "racist;" therefore, there's no need to consider them. Even though such persons constitute a majority in many European countries.

Branding such persons "racist" and "extreme" helps to suppress actual serious advocacy for certain positions. A large number of people might actually support such measures, but if their politicians are too cowed by, say, the BBC's branding of them as "rightwing extremists," they will soft-sell their program and meekly acquiesce in the status quo.

The system works great-- except, of course, for the small problem that it results in an unresponsive politics which ignores the actual wishes of many people. It's a great way to solve the difficulties of democracy, if you don't mind abandoning actua democracy along the way.

As has been frequently noted, the death penalty is actually politically popular in the UK and much of Europe; but European politicians and their support institutions (i.e., the media) have deemed the death penalty beyond the pale.

And thus, we have the odd situation of nominal democracies existing under a regime of laws they actually don't like, and would change, if given the chance. The laws aren't ever changed because, well, because it's just something that's not done, Old Man.

Europeans are continually "shocked" that rightwing parties -- even parties that are, by our lights at least, genuinely racist or extremist, or at least race-ish or extreme-ish -- frequently draw "surprising" levels of support from the people.

At some point, one would think, they'd stop being "surprised" by such frequently-occurring and perfectly predictable results.

Policiticians can ignore the will of the people in favor of the will of a numerically small, but influentially large, left-leaning elite. But only for a time. Periodically the frustration and anger at the unresponsive politicians will result in political support for fringe parties.

The British people might not generally support the BNP. The French might not really support Le Pen. But when the conventional politicians ignore their wishes for long enough, people will ultimately be driven to support somewhat extremist parties.

If only to send a message to the left-leaning elites.

The current European situation mirrors, as usual, American politics of the 1970's. (As we've noted, Europe is always 20-30 years behind America in most categories, including politics.) In the 1970's, most politicians were liberal-- even the Republicans. The American people disagreed strongly with the liberal program, but they found no outlet for their dissent; even Nixon was a liberal.

This resulted in a "surprising" change: Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, and then re-elected by a historic landslide in 1984. And then, in 1994, the liberals' 50 year old strangehold on the House was ended.

Which, of course, was famously summed up by leftist Peter Jennings: The nation had a temper-tantrum today. This is the perfect encapsulation of the leftist elite's view of politics.

The liberal program does not advance, usually, by actually persuading a majority of the public to consent to its agenda. Certainly liberalism does succeed, on occasion, in drawing actual majority support.

But the more common way liberals advance their cause is not by actually increasing support, but by cowing their opposition with words like "extremist" and "racist." The opposition becomes meek and muttering; liberalism advances by default. Not because people have actually consented to the liberal program, but because they have been name-called to the point where they simply accept that the liberal program is not to be challenged at all.

This is not "consent of the governed." At best, this is what Chomsky would term a "manufactured consent." Manufactured, but not real. It's an artificial and false consent, obtained by convincing a majority not that one's agenda is correct, but by convincing a majority that to oppose the liberal agenda would constitute "racism" or "political extremism" or "anti-Americanism."

The liberals are returning to this time-tested path to power. They do so every two or four years. But this time around, it's going to be especially nasty.

II.

We recall an old skit on Saturday Night Live. Jimmy Carter's press secretary, Jody Powell, was a special guest.

The skit involved Powell, playing himself, negotiating the terms of an upcoming debate with Ted Kennedy (played by Dan Aykroyd).

Powell announced that the debate could not involve a litany of subjects which would be politically damaging to Carter. The hostages in Iran, the economy, Afghanistan, etc. -- all were forbidden topics for the debate.

"Well," Ted Kennedy objected, "That doesn't seem to leave us with a lot of things to talk about."

"Nonsense," countered Powell. "We can talk about any number of subjects. For example: alcoholism, your father's bootlegging, your wife's problems with prescription pills, and Chappequiddick."

The liberal playbook for 2004 is to take this absurd situation and make it quite real. For they aim to avoid any actual argument about Kerry's stance on the issues, and leave Bush free to discuss only a tiny universe of subjects deemed politically acceptable. Namely, his military service, Halliburton, the jobless recovery, and the ongoing carnage of our American heroes in Iraq.

We got a taste of this last weekend when we saw Howard Wolfson -- a nasty Democratic hack and Hillary Clinton confidante -- on FoxNews. A Republican hack was making the case -- a fair one, and certainly a legitimate one for public debate -- that John Kerry had proposed cutting $1.5 billion from the CIA's budget in 1995, after the WTC bombing; that John Kerry had supported nuclear freezes in the 1980's; that John Kerry had been a longstanding opponent of numerous important defense systems, like the B-1 and B-2 bombers, and national missile defense, etc.

Wolfson rebutted that even bringing up such positions constituted an "attack on Kerry's patriotism." Wolfson then went on to attack George W. Bush's patriotism, by questioning his service during the Vietnam era.

Again and again, liberals seek to end all discussion of their actual positions and judgments on the most important issue facing our nation by claiming that even bringing up such subjects constitute an "attack on the patriotism" of the liberal in question. How many times have we heard it insisted that criticizing Max Cleland's vote on Homeland Security was an unconscionable attack on this triple-amputee war-hero's "patriotism"?

Thus, when it comes to foreign policy, Democrats will seek not to debate the actual issues, but to avoid and suppress all debate-- at least as far as their own credentials.

John Kerry is free, naturally, to excoriate George W. Bush's foreign policy positions -- and his mistakes -- the strongest possible partisan terms, but if George W. Bush seeks to criticize Kerry's positions and mistakes, it's a "personal attack" which constitutes the "worst sort of politics of personal destruction" by "attacking his patriotism.

And not only that, of course -- it invites, and justifies, an actual personal attack on Bush that has no direct relationship to the actual issues under discussion.

But it's not just foreign policy that Republicans won't be allowed to talk about in 2004. We also will be forbidden by liberal media scolds from discussing domestic policy as well.

Because for a Republican to do so would be "politically divisive."

III.

The politics of "divisiveness" has a long and storied history in liberal argumentation.

Perhaps the most famous use of the charge is with respect to matters of race. We all know by now that to simply question Affirmative Action constitutes the use of "racial code words." We know this because the media tells us so every other week.

To even question Affirmative Action is to display outright racism. Or, if the liberal media feel the need to avoid the appearance of taking sides on the issue, they deem persons so uncouthe to discuss this subject as "racially insensitive" (which means, in case you're wondering, "racist" -- it's just a more polite way to say it).

Howard Dean is outraged by Republicans playing upon the "fears" of white voters that quotas, both actual and effective, will result in them losing a job or college-spot to a preferred minority candidate.

Is this merely a "fear," in the sense that it is phantasmal and unreal?

Howard Dean thinks so. Or at least that's what he implies. Which is, of course, pure jackassery.

If Affirmative Action -- quotas, set-asides, plus factors -- are actually not resulting in more minorities receiving certain benefits -- jobs, college admissions, contracts -- than they would without such quotas, etc., then the system is entirely ineffectual. One would then question why this system -- which, according to liberals, never results in a minority receiving a benefit he otherwise would not-- should remain in place, since it apparently does not result in any benefit whatsoever to minorities and only angers white voters.

On the other hand, if it is the case that quotas, set-asides, plus factors and the rest do, indeed, result in minorities receiving benefits that they otherwise would not -- which is, of course, the case -- then it is not unreasonable for whites and other non-preferred races to be less than enthused about such a regime.

Even if one accepts the continuing need for some level of Affirmative Action efforts -- which is the official position here at Ace of Spades HQ -- it is perfectly legitimate to ask "How much?" and "For how long?"

One can agree that historically-repressed minorities should receive some consideration in the job or college or contract application process while objecting to, say, the University of Michigan's system, wherein a black or Hispanic applicant is given the same amount of points towards college admission as an applicant with a 3.6 grade point average and a perfect score of 1600 on the SAT's.

Some supporters of Affirmative Action claim that given our difficult history with race, minorities should receive the benefit of baseball's rule that the "tie goes to the runner." In other words, given that it has been difficult for minorities to advance in our society in the past, they ought to be given the benefit in close situations. Chris Rock makes this argument, for example.

We agree with that. Wholeheartedly, in fact.

But the runner should not be allowed to take a base if he's beaten to the bag by ten yards, just because his skin tone is darker than pale. No one can claim that, in a contest of a black college applicant with poor-to-mediocre grades and SAT's is in a "close tie" with a white applicant with a 3.6 GPA and a perfect score on the SAT's. That is not a tie, that is a clear and lopsided and unmistakable case of the white applicant being better-qualified than the minority applicant. But proponents of Affirmative Action wish to pretend otherwise.

And they want to brand you a racist for being so impolite to as to point out the facts.

Liberals know they lose politically when the discussion is framed in that manner. They know they cannot, with a completely straight face, claim that Affirmative Action never results in a white applicant being discriminated against; that's the whole point of Affirmative Action.

So they seek to simply shut down all political discussion on the issue by claiming that to question or outright oppose such measures is evidence of "racial insensitivity."

Which, as we noted, is a de facto synonym "racism." There are few voters who say to themselves, "I'm dead-set against racism, but, to be honest, I really don't mind a little harmless racial insensitivity in a politician. I find a little racial insensitivity -- just a touch, you understand -- to be folksy and endearing."

Liberal newsmen who won't even use the term "liberal" for a politician with a 90% "liberal" rating from the ADA (a liberal lobbying group) rush to brand conservatives "racially insensitive" based on the fact that they have the temerity to question the liberal position on race.

IV.

There is another favorite play for achieving similar results outside the context of race. And that's to brand one side in a politically-sensitive dispute "divisive."

It's difficult to paint the dispute over gay marriage as "racist." (Although the poor dears just can't help trying -- witness Andrew Sullivan, for example, frequently claiming that opposition to gay marriage is precisely the same as opposition to miscegenation.)

So they paint opposition to their agenda as "divisive."

This is pure nonsense. There are disputes in our society which are inherently divisive. The debate over gay marriage is not "divisive" because conservatives wish to debate the issue, as the liberals continue to insist. The discussion is not divisive; rather, the subject itself is.

Unavoidably.

It divides us. We disagree about it. Some of us want marriage for gays; some of us do not. Some of us are wishy-washy on the issue.

No matter who ultimately wins on the issue -- "winning" defined as getting one's way, more or less, which is not necessarily the same as actually convincing a majority or plurality of the rightness of your cause -- a large number of people are going to lose.

There is no way that this simple fact can be fudged. On abortion, there are three broad groups. 40% of us want almost no restrictions at all on abortion, with a guarantee of full abortion rights by the federal judiciary. 30% are against almost all abortions. And there's a mush-middle of 30% who want abortion generally available, subject to numerous restrictions.

One of those positions must prevail in our politics. We cannot "unite" behind some common position, because we are in fundamental disagreement. Either the left, middle, or right is going to win on this issue; and whichever group wins, the other two groups will lose.

This isn't because the various political factions are being "divisive." This is because of a thing called reality. On an issue where there is little room for compromise, we have a binary, or at most trinary, situation in which one group's victory is another's defeat.

A politician may attempt some rhetorical fudging on the issue, but in reality, one group will win, the rest will lose. Clinton tried this in 1992 by guaranteeing that abortion would remain "safe, legal, and rare." His victories in 1992 and 1996 meant that the pro-abortion lobby won; abortions were safe, legal, and fairly commonplace. His rhetoric might have superficially united the moderates and liberals; his actual positions favored the liberals. And the conservatives, of course, lost altogether.

It may be "divisive" to argue about abortion, but that's not because one is engaging in some sort of underhanded "divisive" behavior. It's divisive because people disagree passionately about it, and will continue to do so for at least the next 30 years.

What is patently unfair about the divisive charge is that those making it seek to advance their own agenda while branding their opponents somehow un-American or uncivil or mean-spirited for attempting to advance their own. How can it be that advocating for gay marriage is non-divisive, but that advocating against it is suddenly "divisive"?

That's not the same as simple debating an issue. We respect the right of gay-rights-advocates to champion the cause of gay marriage, even though we strongly disagree with them.

We would appreciate it if they, in turn, respected our right to advocate for our own beliefs, even though they strongly disagree with those. We would like it if we were not branded "divisive" for simply engaging in debate on a political issue.

The sham here is that those who argue against "divisiveness" are arguing for a fraudulent unity. They claim they want to concentrate on what "unites" us rather than what "divides" us. But political disputes are not about what may unite us; what unites us becomes, of course, the non-political, non-politicized consensus.

Politics is innately about what divides us; that's rather the whole point of it.

Those who pretend to stand against "divisive politics" are actually simply engaging in divisive politics by deceptive means, attempting to claim that their opponents should simply cease caring about and fighting for their position, while continuing to advance their own.

Howard Dean attempted to play this card several months ago. He declared that we shouldn't bicker and argue and fuss over "God, gays, guns and abortion." We should, he implied, all come together somehow, under some or other solution that could "unite" us.

Was this a signal by Dean that he was ready to "unite" the country under the conservative position on such issues? Of course not. He was only offering to allow conserves to give in and acquiesce to his own liberal position on the issues.

It is true that we could all be "united" if we all simply put aside our qualms about gay marriage and abortion and simply acquiesced to the gay-rights or pro-abortion agenda. But it is equally true that we'd all be just as "united" if gay-rights and abortion activists acquiesced to our agenda.

Those who brand those who disagree with them "divisive" never quite explain why it is the liberal, rather than conservative, position we must all rally behind in the interests of unity.

As per usual, they arrogantly take that as a given, something so obvious as to not require explanation.

V.

George W. Bush has preferred a somewhat monarchist "reign not rule" style of presidency. He has attempted to avoid "divisiveness" himself; he has attempted to avoid blatant partisanship. He has, in short, attempted to take the politics out of politics.

This strategy no longer seems to be working. If it ever did at all.

Bush and the Republicans must not acquiesce in the liberals' attempts to take entire categories of political issues off the table.

They must frontally challenge the claim that questioning Kerry's foreign policy judgments constitute an illicit character attack on his much-vaunted "patriotism."

They must put the issue of gay marriage plainly and starkly before the American people, and refute the claims of liberals and the media -- a bit of a redundant construction there -- that advancing the conservative position on this and similar issues is "divisive," while liberals are free to advance their position unimpeded and thus win by default.

Politicians are now required to appear in their negative ads and specifically state they endorse them. We suggest this script for such a statement in a 60-second ad against Kerry:

I've endorsed this ad because I believe that the American people are entitled to make a reasoned and informed decision upon the foreign policy judgments of both myself and my opponent. My opponent would like to pretend that questioning his past positions and statements constitutes some sort of insidious assault on his patriotism. That is abject nonsense.

I will heartily concede that Mr. Kerry is a patriot. I'll testify under oath in court to that effect if required to do so.

But there have been many men who were very patriotic but whom the American people decided would not make effective Commander in Chiefs. George McGovern was a war hero in World War II. Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale are serious statesmen, who I readily concede they love their country.

That does not, however, mean that the foreign policy judgments of these men shouldn't be questioned or closely scrutinized.

I don't fear an inquiry into my own decisions, policies, and judgments. I welcome such a discussion. I trust the American people will decide in the end that they trust my policies are best for America.

But apparently Senator Kerry fears such a discussion. If he thinks his record is strong, why does he seek avoid defending it? If he believes the American people agree with his vision for American security, why does he attempt to choke off all discussion of it?

It's a mouthful, obviously. But George W. Bush cannot afford trying to coast to November while conceding a single to Senator Kerry and his bosom pals in the media. And he can't even attempt to persuade on any issue until he can first displace the liberal claim that the mere act of debating at all constitutes anti-American behavior.

Unless George W. Bush challenges this pernicious dynamic early, often, and forcefully, he just might find he's going into the election cycle as Ted Kennedy was in that Saturday Night Live sketch -- only permitted to discuss those issues that his opponent has so graciously allowed him.

Massachussetts House Speaker Will Seek to Delay Gay Marriage Enforcement, At Least Until End of Amendment Process