In the wake of their party’s defeat at the voting booth, the great mental meltdown of the Democratic titans continues. Instead of sounding like statesmen, Democratic leaders like outgoing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Vice President Al Gore have been frantically trying to assign blame to anything and everything except the possibility that voters put more trust in Republicans to keep our nation secure.

The paranoid tone of their recent statements left media veterans—even those at outlets inclined to be supportive of Democrats—scratching their heads. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post wondered, “Has Tom Daschle lost a couple of screws?” And in characterizing Gore’s rant, Kurtz wrote, “you could depict this as a profile in courage. Or a profile in self-destructiveness.”

Daschle claimed that Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of his political tactics was tantamount to inciting violence against him and his family, and it was this odd contention that led Kurtz to question whether Daschle’s screw inventory was fully stocked. Or maybe it was that Daschle embarrassed himself further by confusing American political debate on talk radio with the kind of hatred that motivates al Qaeda. “You know,” Daschle said, “we see it in foreign countries and think, ‘Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?’ Well, it’s that same shrill rhetoric, it’s that same shrill power that motivates.”

The day after Daschle’s initial tantrum, he then insulted those of us who perceive a liberal bias in the media, saying, “Contrary to what these right-wing nuts would have you believe, I think that the broadcast media, by and large, tries to be fair to both sides.”

Apparently not content to let Daschle hog the spotlight of stupidity, Al Gore chimed in with his own complaints. Gore’s gripe is that the left no longer exercises total control over the media. In an interview with The New York Observer, Gore recalled Hillary Clinton’s infamous “vast right-wing conspiracy” by saying, “Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh—there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations [...]” But, like Hillary, Gore declined to provide any evidence substantiating his conspiracy theory.

Do Gore and Daschle believe that it is either dangerous or wrong for media outlets to be showing some respect to conservative arguments? After decades of a media that routinely favored one ideological viewpoint—and still does, largely—many people find it refreshing that a handful of outlets like Fox News now exist. Finally, there is a network that doesn’t give short shrift to the beliefs held by a great many Americans, beliefs that the media barely acknowledged for years. Maybe that explains why Fox News now attracts more viewers than CNN despite being available in far fewer markets.

At least Gore and Daschle can take solace in the fact that outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, PBS and NPR still propagate the liberal orthodoxy—under the guise of news stories—on a daily basis. And I’m sure it will cheer those glum Dems to remember that they’re still forcing the public to pay (in taxes) to broadcast their talking points on PBS and NPR.

One could easily interpret the statements of Gore and Daschle as the isolated bitching of a bitter pair. But to do that would miss the larger point: the tenor of political debate has deteriorated to such an appalling degree that name-calling has replaced genuine policy discussion. For example, if you don’t share Tom Daschle’s view of the media, you’re a right-wing nut. If you characterize his blocking of legislation as obstructionist, Daschle will compare you to a mullah stirring the passions of terrorists. And Gore believes it is so unthinkable for the media to present conservative viewpoints that it must really be part of some grand conspiracy secretly funded by evil fascist billionaire capitalist pigs whose wallets are made out of people who died because they couldn’t find affordable prescription drugs.

The “politics of personal destruction”—a phrase popularized by Clinton during his impeachment—has been in vogue since long before Monica Lewinsky captured the attention of Clinton’s indiscriminate libido. Although the tactic of demonizing the opposition has been practiced with varying intensity throughout the history of politics, this current round of hyper-partisan warfare can be traced back to 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork was one of the most respected jurists in the nation, earning the top rating of the American Bar Association, which judged him “exceptionally well-qualified.” But he was a conservative, and the Democrats who controlled the Senate didn’t like that.

During the Bork hearings, the sport of politics became open combat, and the political atmosphere in Washington hasn’t been the same since. Bork’s nomination was killed using smear tactics that included digging up lists of his video rentals. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy used the usual scare tactics, saying, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which [...] blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.” The hearings were so notoriously vicious that “bork” became a verb, meaning to destroy someone personally so as to render them inert politically.

The borking of Bork came as the Democrats were becoming increasingly frustrated at their inability to use Iran-Contra to take down President Reagan. Perhaps Bork was merely a proxy for Reagan, and was therefore the unfortunate recipient of their misdirected rage.

Similarly, the Republicans were frustrated by their inability to hold Clinton accountable for his various scandals. Some saw this as an opportunity to avenge Bork; George Stephanopoulos, the day after Clinton’s impeachment, said “As a Democrat, I will say the Democrats should rue the day when they made one simple act: the day they subpoenaed Robert Bork’s videos.” But some Republicans overreached with a vitriol that did not sit well with the public. (Congressman Dan Burton referring to Clinton as a “scumbag” comes to mind.) This may have helped the Democrats pick up seats in 1998, even though midterm elections historically go against the President’s party.

Aside from the obvious lesson—that extreme hysterics turn off the public—the other lesson is that presidents have a built-in advantage against opponents who speak with bitterness. The presidency, assuming it is treated with respect, confers upon its holder a stature that no opposing party official can match. The more excited and extreme the rhetoric becomes on the side of the opposition, the more it plays into the president’s hands by creating an even greater gulf of respectability between the president and his opponents. Wielded properly, a presidency can reduce the opposition to a pack of yapping poodles. And that’s exactly what killed the Democrats in the last election.

Thankfully, though, this “era of borking” won’t last forever; it may come to an end soon after the 2004 elections. Over the next two years, I expect the Democrats to become increasingly unhinged, culminating in a disastrous 2004 campaign against President Bush and the Republicans. After another devastating electoral failure, it will be much more difficult for the Democrats to deny reality. A major power struggle will take place within the Democratic party, and the tone that brought about their defeats will be rejected outright.

But it will take more than that to repair the Democratic party. They need policy positions that aren’t merely echoes of poll results. They need more than automatic opposition to whatever President Bush does. Some Democrats already understand this—Senator Zell Miller is a prime example—but such voices of reason currently have no influence within the Democratic party. Perhaps they will after another electoral drubbing.

Although as a conservative I tend not to hope for too much Democratic success, an irrelevant Democratic party serves neither the long-term interests of the Republicans or the nation. Political competition is a good thing, and without the Democrats keeping the Republicans on their toes, it is conceivable that the Republicans could become as tired and bereft of ideas as the Democrats are today. Unchecked power is never a good thing.

In the meantime, though, I’ll admit that watching people like Gore and Daschle disintegrate publicly is rather entertaining.