Is He Saying What I Think He's Saying?
A column, published by Dean Muphy in the New York Times yesterday, seeks to draw historical parallels between the administrations of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and George W. Bush. Lincoln, like Bush, freely spoke of God. Lincoln, like Bush was roundly criticized for his references to the Almighty. McKinley, like Bush, sought to create an era of Republican political dominance.
Both Lincoln and McKinley were assasinated in office.
On comparing Bush to Lincoln, Murphy writes:
Now, with George W. Bush's re-election, God and a newly triumphant Republican president are once again in the headlines. And there are signs that the present national divide, between the narrow but solid Republican majority and a Democratic party seemingly trapped in second place, may be hardening into a pattern that will persist for years to come.
Democrats, especially, are left to wonder: What will it take to break the pattern - an act of God?
On Comparing Bush to McKinley at the end of the column, Murphy concludes:
Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the foundation for lasting Republican dominance.
"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."
Until the next act of God, that is.
Do read the entire column as the writer clearly seems to theorize that the only way to reverse the conservative trend is for President Bush to suffer the same fate as Lincoln and McKinley. Is this the current state of the discourse from the left? What have they become?