8/25/00 10:00 a.m.
A Troubling Democratic Party, Part II
Observations on the L.A. convention.

By Dennis Prager, a theologian and author of four books

The Walk
If a Third World dictatorship featured its leader walking backstage alone through the corridors for about a minute, followed by obsequious cameras, Americans would mock such a scene as ludicrous propaganda.

Yet that is what the Democratic party and its leader, the president of the United States, offered to the American public. Watching my president take this self-idolizing walk to the podium was actually embarrassing to this American. I can only hope that even some classy Democrats were embarrassed. As one Fox news commentator suggested, the scene belonged on a Saturday Night Live parody.

The shamelessness of it all only served to further erode the dignity of the office of president of the United States. Nothing has changed since the beginning of Mr. Clinton's first term when he was asked on national television by a young woman whether he wore boxers or jockey shorts — and he responded. No president in American history would have been asked that question, and if asked, none would have dignified it with a response. The erosion continued with the selling of the Lincoln bedroom and with the amalgamation of Hollywood and Washington.

What is more remarkable and disturbing is how little comment the president's pharaoh-like ascendance to the platform of Staples Center elicited from the American public. The erosion of presidential dignity has become acceptable.

The Actor and the Daughter
The erosion continues. Vice President Gore was nominated as the Democratic party candidate for president of the United States — by an actor. This was not a public figure who was once an actor, but a Hollywood movie star. And the nomination was seconded by the nominee's daughter.

Both were unprecedented — as was the nomination of the vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, by his wife, Hadassah. This, too, was a first. Both Mrs. Lieberman's and Karenna Gore's comments were touching and eloquently delivered. But neither they nor Tommy Lee Jones should have been the nominators of the leaders of America. Combined with President Clinton's theatrical walk to the podium and Mr. Gore's prolonged kiss of his wife, these nominators further reduced the dignity of the office of president.

But how many Americans care about such an abstract matter? I suspect not the majority, and I suspect that nearly every one who does will vote Republican. As far as most Americans are concerned, Mr. Clinton and the Democrats were right in the choice of their campaign motto when Mr. Clinton first ran in 1992 — "It's the economy, stupid." It certainly isn't the dignity of the presidency.

"The Right to Choose" What?
Did you know that the word abortion was probably not mentioned once at the Democratic National Convention? How is that possible? Isn't the right to an abortion central to the Democratic party's self-image?

The question is rendered all the more striking by the fact that the phrase "right to choose" was one of the two or three most often mentioned by the hundred or so speakers at the convention. Yet, this listener, who recorded every minute of the convention, never heard the word abortion.

Now why was that? Why would Democrats at their convention never or almost never utter the word abortion? It certainly seems clear that a party that passionately supports a cause will mention it by name. When conservatives talk about prayer in school they don't speak of "a child's right to choose…"; when talking about vouchers, they always mention "vouchers," not "a parent's right to choose…."

There are only two possible reasons for the Democrats not mentioning abortion. The obvious one is that they fear that saying the word will turn off many people. Since people who are proud of advocating something will always mention it by name, we can only assume that Democrats rarely mention the word — indeed they flee from it — because they are not proud of it. Instead they focus on the subject of women's rights, a far more universally appealing moral issue. Most moral individuals (including many who argue for its legality) have moral misgivings about most abortions, but no moral individual morally opposes women's equality. Thus the phrase "a woman's right to choose" is made the moral issue, not what it is she is choosing.

The second reason may be many Democrats' own moral ambivalence about abortion. I believe that most pro-choice activists want to fool themselves about precisely what it is they so passionately advocate. But with all the increased awareness about abortion and especially about the increasingly lower ages of fetal viability, it is difficult for pro-choice activists to fool themselves into believing that the only issue here is "choice." They are often as aware as any of us that the vast majority of abortions in America are simply self-centered acts, that most American women who have an abortion are destroying nascent human life simply because it is emotionally too difficult for them to give the child up for adoption. There is no newborn in America who could not find a loving father and mother — not of any race nor of any physical impairment. Rarely is there the slightest question of the woman's health, let alone danger to her life.

For many of these activists, therefore, saying abortion would engender painful cognitive dissonance. By focusing solely on a woman's "right to choose" rather than on what it is they are really arguing for — a human being's right to end the life of a human fetus — i.e., that which is called a "baby" by all women not having an abortion — for no moral reason.

The Boos for the Boy Scouts
Years ago, Bill Clinton became the first president to refuse to attend the Boy Scouts Jamboree. The Democratic party's antipathy toward the Boy Scouts has continued unabated, and even expressed itself during its convention.

As reported in the Washington Times, "As the uniformed Scouts took part in the opening ceremony, the delegates, seated in the front of the hall, waved their signs — and booed."

"The Boy Scouts," the report went on to say, "were shocked by the negative reception. The Los Angeles Council of Boy Scouts sent a half-dozen Eagle Scouts and an adult leader to the event at the request of Democratic organizers, said council spokesman Joey Robinson.

"I think whatever the national policy is, the kids don't set the policy. When you boo the policy, you're booing the kids," said Mr. Robinson.

"Fortunately, he said, the Staples Center was so noisy during the Tuesday night ceremony that none of the boys heard the booing, although the adult leader did."

California delegate Craig Christensen defended the Democratic delegates' reaction by explaining, "Of course, we're not against the kids — it isn't about them. But there were groups that could have been picked that haven't been so blatantly discriminatory. It was a thoughtless thing to do."

In other words, the Democrats should never have invited the Boy Scouts to begin with.

If I had to offer one reason to vote against the Democratic party, it would be its war against the Boy Scouts. Because the Boy Scouts insist that Scouts take an oath to God and country, the ACLU and others have attacked the Boy Scouts for "discriminating" against atheists who refuse to take that oath. And because the Scouts do not allow boys who announce that they are homosexual into the Scouts — the Scouts, like the armed forces, essentially practice a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy — the battle against the Scouts is now waged by the Democratic party and its supporters in the media and academia.

And now there is enormous pressure on businesses and cities not to fund any Scouts activities.

I often marvel at the left's ability to destroy. I know of no major social institution that the left has created, but it has been inordinately successful at hurting various social institutions, such as the public schools and the armed forces. And it now intends to crush the Boy Scouts. America would be a better place if the Left created institutions in its own image, instead of wounding institutions that have some conservative values. Let the Democrats and the ACLU create a liberal Boy Scouts, with no oaths and with no criteria related to sexual orientation, identity, or personal behavior. The ACLU, after all, has argued on behalf of allowing students who cross-dress into public school classrooms, and more than a few public schools even have a cross-dressing day.

For those who watched closely, the 2000 Democratic National Convention itself offered reason after reason to fear a Democratic victory.

The above portion of this article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 23, and the entire article appears in the next issue of The Prager Perspective. Dennis Prager is a theologian and author of four books, including Happiness Is a Serious Problem (HarperCollins, 1998). He is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host based in Los Angeles. His website is www.dennisprager.com.

The above portion of this article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 23, and the entire article appears in the next issue of The Prager Perspective. Dennis Prager is a theologian and author of four books, including Happiness Is a Serious Problem (HarperCollins, 1998). He is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host based in Los Angeles.

If you missed Part I of A Troubling Democratic Party,
click here.