Fred Barnes has an editorial in the Standard arguing that Democrats have adopted “brutal tactics”: calling Condi Rice a liar, Iraq a disaster, and Bush’s Social Security plan an attempt to “destroy” the program. Barnes thinks that the Democrats are trying to replicate Newt Gingrich’s success in 1993-94, but are misunderstanding the sources of that success.

Here’s Barnes’s bottom line: “The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can’t afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president’s entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what’s permissible and what’s out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006.”

Mickey Kaus writes that the Democratic strategy might not be “suicidal” in terms of fundraising. I suspect that the strategy is based on genuine beliefs that have been adopted, in part, because holding them offers great psychic rewards. It allows liberals to rationalize political defeats as a matter of their superior virtue, and to rationalize viciousness as fighting fire with fire. Many liberals reacted to the 2002 and 2004 elections by concluding, with very little evidence, that they would have won if only they had been louder.

But I don’t think Barnes’s remedies will work. How exactly is the White House to delineate “what’s permissible and what’s out of bounds in dissent on Iraq”? Should the White House press secretary declare that people should watch what they say? Any attempt to restore or create a political norm will be treated as a crackdown on free speech. It will reinforce the Democrats’ sense of their own persecuted virtue.