More F-Words, More Backlash

The worst thing about Zell Miller's speech was neither its tone nor its basis in transparent lies, but the jingoistic authoritarianism for which it argues. Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic and William Saletan in Slate make essentially the same point: the Republican keynote speech was an assault on the bedrock principles of democratic republicanism, of rule by consent of the governed.

First Cohn:

A critic could credibly describe Senator Zell Miller's speech to the Republican Convention as angry, misleading, or both. But to dwell on either the tone or veracity of Miller's text somehow misses the point given the scene that unfolded at Madison Square Garden last night. In an address originally billed as a critique of John Kerry's national security credentials, Miller essentially branded the Democrats as traitors because they haven't fallen in line with President Bush on all matters of national security. It was one of the most vile political speeches in recent American history, every bit as offensive as Pat Buchanan's infamous call in 1992 for "religious war" and, perhaps, a little more disturbing. Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy...

Are there people on the left of American politics who think America is the problem? Sure. Are some even hostile to American troops? A few, maybe. But to level such accusations at Kerry, who volunteered for frontline service in Vietnam and won medals for his heroic performance there, seems absurd on its face. (It's even more absurd in the case of such prominent Democrats as Max Cleland, Daniel Inouye, Bob Kerrey, and Charlie Rangel, who suffered serious wounds in battle.) Alas, it's probably no more absurd than making the ultimate accusation of treason against Kerry, that he'd hand the reigns of American power over to a foreign country: "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. ... This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?"

Next Saletan:

But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.