Stop! In the name of the left!

New York Post:

IN 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. famously declared that the purpose of conservatism was "to stand athwart history, yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

That astoundingly witty remark was a rueful acknowledgement of the uphill challenge facing the nascent American right, half a century ago — trying to halt the forward movement of a self-confident liberal left that was utterly certain it could make the world a better place through government action and forced social change.

Who could have imagined, reading Buckley's words in 1955, that 50 years later the liberal left would have adopted Buckley's screaming "Stop" as its mantra? Only there's nothing whimsically philosophical about the Democratic "Stop," as there was in Buckley's case. Rather, there's something primal about it, something desperate, something heartbroken and enraged.

Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP!

Find new sources of domestic oil to combat our dependence on Middle East petroleum? STOP!

A nominee for U.N. ambassador who has been confirmed four times previously by the Senate and whose views clearly dovetail with the president who nominated him? STOP!

And on and on it goes. How else to explain the wild enthusiasm, indeed the almost romantic praise, expressed by Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media for the Senate filibuster — a legislative maneuver created by a quirk in Senate rules that was most famously used to block civil-rights laws in the 1940s and 1950s?

After all, the filibuster is the ultimate "stop" — a device that has no other purpose and no other effect other than to halt the passage of a piece of legislation or a nomination for high office that has succeeded in getting through a Senate committee and has the support of a majority of senators.

It's a sensible tactical approach in some ways. The Democrats find themselves with an 11-seat deficit in the Senate, a 30-seat minority in the House of Representatives, and they face a Republican president who won the first absolute majority vote in 16 years. They have no hope of getting through legislation they would like.

Negativity is one of the few ways they have to express their policy views — or, let us say, to express their disapproval of Republican policy views. It's a classic approach for a minority party.

At times that negativity can be a powerful rallying point, as it was when Republicans in Washington decided they were going to do everything they could to kill the 1993 Clinton health-care proposal — and used the momentum from that negative victory to create the conditions for the landslide midterm election in 1994 when they took control of the House and Senate.

Certainly, Democrats and liberals will be thrilled and emboldened if they succeed in their disgraceful and repellent efforts to torpedo John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador through venal acts of character assassination. But Bolton's defeat will only lead the ornery Bush to appoint someone else Democrats might despise even more — and they will only be able to rally their energies to this cause once.

Certainly they will be thrilled if Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is unable to muster the 50 GOP senators he will need to rewrite the rules and end the ability of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees.

But what will they have to show for it? The defeat of the Clinton health-care plan depressed and debilitated Democrats and the Clinton administration. The defeat of Bolton and the continuing filibuster of judicial nominees will only serve to enrage the Republican base — and Bush won't change his foreign policy because Bolton isn't at the United Nations to help advance it.

The difference between Democrats in 2005 and Republicans in 1993 is that the GOP did more than yell "Stop." Yes, they defeated the Clinton health-care bill. But they also offered a highly detailed series of proposals for reform in Washington that offered voters a sense that Republicans weren't just reacting against Clintonism but were ready to supplant it with something better.

By contrast, Democrats and liberals are screaming themselves hoarse as they yell "Stop" continuously. And when it comes to explaining, advancing or even imagining positive, forward-thinking policies for change, there's only silence.

All that yelling is leading to a potentially terminal case of laryngitis.