Wall Street Journal Has Acute Democrat-Phobia: Opinion Piece Warns of Possible "Liberal Supermajority"

The possibility of a Democratic sweep, including a filibuster-proof Senate, makes the Wall Street Journal's editorial board afraid -- very afraid. In a recent opinion piece, the newspaper examines changes that it believes a Democratic "supermajority" would implement. I have listed some of the policies below, mixing in my own snide editorial comments!



(1) Before getting detailed, the essay warns that a Democratic sweep "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."

Reaction: Which part of the 1960s should we fear? The enactment of the Voting

Rights Act, legislation banning race, sex, and national origin discrimination in

employment, or laws prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public

accommodation?

(2) Medicare for all. The article points out that sneaky Democrats responded to the political defeat of "Hillarycare" by breaking it down into component parts, like Schip (State Children's Health Insurance Program). A liberal supermajority would "lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave."

Reaction: "Government-run" health insurance? This is a mischaracterization of

Obama's health plan. Also, what chutzpah -- criticizing health care for indigent

kids!

(3) Green Revolution

Reaction: Personally, I do not fear having a healthy environment or stronger

efforts to make that a reality. What about you?

(4) "Free Speech and Voting Rights" (yes -- a quote!). Democrats would legislate "same-day" voter registration. "Acorn and the 'community organizer' left" support this. Also, DC residents would have representation in Congress. Plus felons would have the opportunity to vote.

Reaction: I am not sure pure conservatives would oppose enlarging "free speech

and voting rights." These rights strike at the heart of egalitarian democratic

participation. But the WSJ fears political participation by certain classes (felons, DC Democrats, who are largely black), not all. Also, several states -- red, blue, and purple -- now have same-day registration.

(5) "Special-interest potpourri" (my favorite heading in the essay). This section includes a laundry-list of feared policies, such as "intrusive regulation" of the Internet, the trial of "terrorists" in federal courts, watering down of "No Child Left Behind" standards, and the burdensome formation of new rights of action "sprinkled throughout legislation."

Reaction: Isn't No Child Left Behind watered-down by definition because it is

an unfunded mandate? Also, the lack of explicit "rights of actions" in some

federal legislation backfired on Republicans when the Supreme Court struck down

the injunction in the Ohio voter case. I really appreciate irony. Finally, the purpose of a criminal trial is to prosecute "suspected" terrorists (or other types of accused criminals). The assumption of guilt is probably the most loathsome and dangerous aspect of Bush's military tribunals. With all of the talk about "patriotism" we usually hear from conservatives, their willingness to abandon core American principles stated in the Bill of Rights sends a terribly mixed message. Conservative libertarians, however, value those rights. Ron Paul, for example, opposes the Patriot Act.