As these columns have periodically lamented, old-style Democrats are an endangered lot these days.  Indeed, when a life-long stalwart Democrat such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman is compelled to change his party affiliation to "Democrat-Independent," it's tantamount to a diagnosis of political pathology.

There's a piece on today's Huffington Post by Roberto Lovato, which is yet another dyspeptic reminder of how far to the left the party has migrated.  The quote below is emblematic of precisely how distorted the lens of liberalism has become:

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deserve much of the blame for the militaristic depredations that threaten the country and planet alike. But we ignore at our own risk the vast and well-rooted networks of political, military and economic interests that have long benefited from and enabled the machinations of empire. Our failure to push Obama to attack rather than promote U.S. militarism and empire will most certainly leave us vulnerable to a new era of "change," an era driven by the hydra-headed global dragon of free trade and militarism.

 Makes you want to reach for a drink.  We could adduce the fact that after the thorough-going failure of President Clinton's Agreed Framework with North Korea, that manifest threat to civilization has been effectively defanged by 6-party talks (not the unilateral talks Clinton championed); we could celebrate the fact that Saddam Hussein is deposed and dead, along with his two henchmen sons, and that the hundreds of thousands of innocents he murdered have been avenged, not to mention the fact that Iraq is on track towards a government of incipient self-determination; we could discuss the stunning fact that in the seven years since 9/11 America has not been attacked again, something on 9/12 that no one would have believed.

But since one of the hallmarks--symptoms?--of modern liberalism is its imperviousness to reason, none of this matters, because their policy goals always trump facts.  Lovato and his "machinations of empire" is stuff right out of Noam Chompsky's active imagination and is a curious observation since, according to The Freedom House, more people worldwide live in some degree of freedom than ever before.  Moreover, it's an irrefutable fact that the United States, with its remarkable ability to project soft and hard power, economically and militarily, is responsible for a large measure of those successes.

So, why do the Lovatos of the world seem so eager to excoriate President Bush, whose foreign policy has so positively impacted the world?  Why, indeed, do they lament globalization and free trade that has lifted places like Eastern Europe from the depths of despair into the civilized world of economic vitality?  Simply stated, they are convinced that capitalism is hostile to the common good, because, among other sins, it's not perfect.  They are also in league with the European vision of a robust Statist influence in our lives, which is curious because their infatuation is out of sync with France and Germany, who are moving aggressively to inhibit public sector influence, embracing everything from pension reform to changing the culture that gave birth to the strangling 35-hour work week.

Coupled with their anachronistic polity that denies the existence of evil and insists that despots are on a par with leaders of free nations--because, as you know, the former are merely the by-products of America's imperialist, hegemonic depredations--the unavoidable result is that everything that was historically lionized about America is now fundamentally flawed.  Indeed, in the post-modern universe Lovato inhabits there are no absolutes, moral or civic, which places democracy in supreme jeopardy.

But, as the election moves into full swing, it's encouraging to know that the neolithic left will be nipping at Obama's heels, sleepless in its pursuit of a socialist America, which can only leverage moderate Democrats and Independents into McCain's camp, which, of course, we welcome.

A letter in today's Colorado Springs Gazette prompted this reply from ClearCommentary.com:

Perpetuating the left’s pet myth that President Bush’s economic policies have been disastrous, letter writer Charles Merritt darkly warns that Sen. McCain has pledged to continue the Bush legacy (“Public, McCain mimic Bush in profligate spending habits,” July 17). 

First, as President Reagan correctly observed, the president can’t spend a dime.  Indeed, all appropriations bills originate with members of Congress and only they have the power of the purse.  Therefore, if Congress is legislating a diet rich in pork it must be because their constituents support it, which is their craven way of ensuring re-election. 

A second fabrication, compliments of liberals and their foot soldiers in the mainstream media, is that the Bush tax cuts favored the so-called ‘rich.’  During the much-vaunted Clinton years a single income earner at $30,000 paid $3,157 in federal taxes, while under Bush that figure is $2,756; a married couple with $50,000 in income paid $5,085 and $4,012, respectively.  You can view the rest of the rates at www.taxfoundation.org, but the conclusion is unavoidable:  Low to moderate income earners have faired much better under Bush than Clinton, and Bush even removed millions of low wager-earners from the tax rolls entirely. 

Unlike Sen. Obama, who has pledged to increase income and capital gains taxes, and who plans to hobble the research and development efforts of petroleum producers with a so-called windfall tax, Sen. McCain understands that lower taxes and regulation lead to economic growth for all income earners. 

Another specious argument is that low income earners are permanently mired in poverty.  A Treasury Department study last year demonstrated that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005, and that nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, with 5.3% having made it all the way to the highest quintile. 

So if you want higher taxes and lower growth, by all means support Obama; but if you want lower taxes and greater opportunity for economic success, McCain is the clear choice.