We certified Kerry-phobes no longer hold the monopoly on bemoaning the rather pathetic Presumptive Democratic Nominee. Even hacks like the WashPo’s Richard Cohen are starting to pile on. Anti-war “progressives,” meanwhile, like former Mass. State Rep Tom Gallagher are also still struggling to swallow the increasingly bitter Kerry candidacy.
So, here’s a Modest Proposal. Why don’t the Democrats consider switching to the brilliant strategy deployed in the 70’s and 80’s by the Italian Communist Party? Maybe the Democrats should just default, not actively contest the election, allow GW Bush to be re-elected, and allow the Prez to exhaust himself and his governing party. It’s the old rope-a-dope move.
Some context: Back in the mid-70’s the very moderate Italian CP which was the dominant force in many a city and region, could have easily pacted with the centrist and smaller Socialists and easily come to power. But the crafty Commie leader of the time, Enrico Berlinguer, took one look at the OPEC-battered economy, rising unemployment rates, unruly unions, massive state corruption and concluded… nah! Why try to govern this mess? Better to stay comfortably in opposition, Comrade Berlinguer figured. Stay as far as possible from the responsibilities of government and let the mafia-like incumbent Christian Democrats continue to be ground down as they shouldered all the burdens of power. Thirty years later, the Italian Christian Democrats (and the Socialists) have indeed disappeared, and the Communists – albeit under a different name—now alternate in power with Silvio Berlusconi’s conservatives and will certainly lead the next Italian administration.
Shouldn’t the Democrats ponder this? Provided that John Kerry could actually win, do his supporters really want to inherit Bush’s deficits, rising interest rates, slumping Wall Street, anemic job market and deepening quagmire in Iraq? They want to try to manage that mess?
Instead of sliding down the chute with Kerry, wouldn’t it be easier to just withdraw from the 2004 contest and default the election to Bush? What would he be able to do in his second term anyway? Unable to pacify Fallujah, short on troops, lacking a governing partner in Baghdad, racking up a $5 billion a month tab in Iraq, driving his war management approval ratings down below 50%, having already rent NATO as well as opening an emerging (Powell-Rumsfeld) war of recriminations within in his own party, just what options would a re-elected Bush have? Sounds like four years of White House misery to me.
Wouldn’t that be immensely more amusing than watching Kerry ineptly soldier on?
Or maybe not.
