I always enjoy Andrew Klavan’s videos, but this may well be one of the best he’s ever done. With sly sarcasm and wit, he quickly and neatly exposes the rank hypocrisy and disdain for blacks that has animated the Democrat party for more than 150 years:
My earlier post about Trevor Loudon’s talk pivoted on the fact that communists are bad and that Democrats are communists. What I didn’t know is that maverick talk show host Howard Stern said much the same recently. This poster is a slightly abbreviated version of what he said, but it’s 100% accurate in all important respects:
Here’s Stern’s whole statement, which he made at the end of February 2014.
(Hat tip: Caped Crusader)
Long, long day. Really long. I spent it with my mother, an experience that always exhausts me. Age has sucked everything but the life out of her. There’s no vestige anymore of the person she once was. That saddens me, even though I know it’s the way of things. A day spent with her is no longer a day with Mom, which used to be my delight, but is, instead, a day spent with a very frail, very slow, somewhat confused, usually grumpy, very passive-aggressive, lovingly narcissistic, obsessive compulsive person.
I don’t regret the time. I still love the person she was, so I care deeply for the person she is, but I always arrive home completely drained. It takes energy for me to slow down to her speed (which is the same reason I never enjoyed toddlers) and it takes even more energy for me to deal with her relentless negativity and to track, and respond appropriately to, her often obscure conversation. I’m a grumpy person myself, so I’ve told both the kids to kick me in the tuchus if, when I’m old, I whine endlessly. I’ve told them to feel free to threaten me with their absence if I don’t clean up (or cheer up) my act.
Thankfully, I’ve now had a couple of hours to decompress. My husband took my daughter and her friends to the movies, the dogs are washed and resting nearby, and the mouse is making music on its creaky little wheel. Everything is peaceful. I like peaceful, since it gives my brain freedom. And with that mental freedom comes the urge to share my thoughts. Here goes:
The new Nazi salute rises in Europe. Its practitioners say it’s a joke, because they angle their stiff arm downwards, not upwards. Their claim that it’s a joke is a lie, of course. They pair this neo-Nazi salute with the same venomous anti-Semitism that led the Nazis to create the gas chambers. Also, it’s very bizarre to see black men do this salute, since the Nazis believed firmly in black racial inferiority Hitler, as many recall, was livid when Jesse Owens swept the races during the 1936 Munich Olympics. How dare he prove false one of the Nazi’s racial theories.
Andrew McCarthy has penned one of his best posts. In addition to shredding the purported facts in the now-infamous New York Times whitewash of Benghazi history (which I won’t dignify with a link), McCarthy zeroes in on the real purpose behind the story — and it’s not just to salvage Hillary’s reputation:
[T]he objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense: The cockamamie trailer and the dizzying jihadist org chart.
Coherence and historical accuracy are not what the Times is after. The aim is to drag our consideration of a jihadist act of war down a rabbit hole of nitpicking over which jihadists did what. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s derelictions before, during, and after the massacre — the matter of greatest consequence — remain studiously outside this wearying crossfire.
Remember, the Times-Clinton tag team has run this play before. Start with a president using a young intern to turn the Oval Office into a brothel and then perjuring himself over it. Ought to be a removable offense, right? But the next thing you know, after some epic media investigation dictated by Democratic talking points, we find ourselves kvetching over whether it was really sex; whether she was of consenting age; whether he really lied; whether the lies were really “material”; whether a president’s Oval Office trysts are really part of his “private life”; and “what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
See? None of the ever tinier questions or answers matter. The idea is to exhaust the American attention span until enough people are persuaded that it’s time to — all together now — move on.
McCarthy ends his post with dozens of the big questions, the ones that need to be asked. The tragedy of those questions, a tragedy in many ways greater even than those four lonely, violent deaths in Benghazi, is that no one will ever ask them. The media surrounding Obama and Hillary doesn’t want to know the answer to those questions, and Obama and Hillary will be careful to avoid every coming into contact with the people willing to ask them.
Caroline Glick sees a silver lining to that same New York Times article. She believes that the Times, while trying to whitewash Obama and Hillary, accidentally admitted an important truth: Radical Islam, which is a worldwide phenomenon made up of many groups and individuals, is the problem. Al Qaeda is just one tiny drop in the Islamist ocean. This reality runs counter to Obama’s own narrative.
Since bin Laden’s death, as you know, Obama has been boasting that al Qaeda is dead, meaning that America no longer need fear massive terrorist attacks or global warfare. With that fiction in place, Obama has felt free to pal around with Iran, the Taliban, the Turkish government, etc. The New York Times just blew that fiction to smithereens. Either al Qaeda was the main actor in Benghazi, which means that Obama lied when he said it was defeated, dropped the ball in Benghazi, and lied after the fact; or al Qaeda didn’t commit the Benghazi massacre, which means that Obama lied when he said al Qaeda was the only Islamic enemy, and that he’s been exposing America to terrible danger by refusing to acknowledge terrorists other than al Qaeda.
I agree with Glick in principle, but believe that only a small subset of Americans will appreciate these subtleties. Either they support Obama and Hillary or they don’t. Nothing else matters.
Jonathan Marks writes a brilliant take-down of the antisemitic American Studies Association.
And speaking of the travesty that is modern academia, if you can get behind the Wall Street Journal’s paywall, please check out Heather MacDonald’s masterful exposure of the rot at the heart of UCLA’s English literature department. Shakespeare is out and now English majors must take “a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.”
It sure sounds as if the English Lit department has been transformed into the Marxist Social Issues department. The students will learn how not to think. Well, they’re actually learning how not to think in every department at every major American university. (In years past, I might have excluded the sciences from that blanket statement, but the sciences’ impassioned embrace of the global warming hoax reveals that academia is tainted in toto.) Worse, these English majors will never learn learn about the beauty of their mother tongue nor will they be exposed to big ideas about human kind. Instead, their prose, and the thoughts underlying that prose, will be like this:
At its most intimate, colonization involves bodies, altering how subjects experience and conceive of desire, hunger, touch, comfort, pleasure, and pain. This panel seeks participants from all disciplines engaged with the objects of early American studies to contribute to a discussion of method and theory for understanding early American carnality. In particular, it is concerned with the intersection of bodily sensation with evolving understandings of empire, nation, encounter, and resistance. How was colonization effected through and affected by sensation? How do theories of affect and intimacy impact current early American historiographies, and vice versa? How might Americanists reconceptualize our understandings of the significance of empire and colonization through attentiveness to early American sensation? Proposals that consider race, gender, and/or sexuality dynamically or that explore economic status, religion, local conditions, or ethno-cultural identities as part of carnality strongly encouraged (though naming some themes is not meant to exclude other possibilities).
Each panelist will present a 10 minute paper and be paired with a respondent who will provide prepared comments. Respondents will ideally be non-early Americanists in order to foster temporal interdisciplinarity.
Mr. Bookworm doesn’t understand why I’m resistant to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send my children to big name colleges. It’s not just that they’re rife with antisemitism and anti-Americanism. It’s because major universities such as UCLA are neutering and Marx-icizing their English departments, meaning that the universities’ ultimate goal is for America’s “best and brightest” (or at least, her “A” and “B” students) to be taught to think and write in the way of American academics.
Everything you need to know about the Obama administration: It frees from prison Lynne Stewart, an unrepentant Communist who actively aided Islamist terrorism against the US, even as it gets ever-more-deeply involved in a down and dirty fight with nuns who refuse to let the government force them to violate their religious conscience. My money is on the nuns. Obama may have a rigid ideology on his side, but the nuns are members of God’s army, and they will not give up the fight. Fortunately, the Archdiocese of New York is not playing nice but is, instead, telling the world exactly what the Obama administration is doing — and what it’s doing is discriminating against traditional religion.
Mary Tudor (1516-1558) lost Calais, the last English outpost in France. She found that loss so horrifying that she said, “When I am dead and opened, you shall find `Calais’ lying in my heart.” Barack Obama has lost Fallujah, the city that American troops, especially Marines, bled and died for, probably in greater numbers than in any other geographic site in our decade long battle against Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He hasn’t said a single word about this terrible loss, nor does he seem to care that he’s allowed ten years of hard-fought military victories to vanish in the blink of an eye. When Obama dies and is opened, not only will no one find ‘Fallujah’ lying in his heart, no one will find a heart.
Tom Blumer details the five myths people have to believe in order to accept the Obama presidency as anything other than a disaster. Two involve the economy, one involves Obamacare, one involves climate change, and the last is about national security. 2014 may well be the death of all these myths, but we’ll still be saddled with two more years of Obama.
The Democrat party used to have genuine liberals in its numbers — people with a broad, classic education who envisioned a world that was better with America, not a world better off without America. They may have been useful idiots who were unaware that they represented the pretty front of hardcore Leftism, but they were real.
These old-time liberal Democrats were the people who believed in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. They believed that men and women were different (and viva la difference), but that women were entitled to equal treatment under the law. They would have scoffed at the notion that men, and all their biological impulses, are dangerous and perverse, and should therefore be destroyed. They believed wholeheartedly that blacks were their brothers and sisters, and deserved full standing under the law. They would have been shocked to hear that the blacks were to be treated economically as marginally intelligent infants and sexually as uncontrolled adolescents. That’s how the KKK and Jim Crow viewed blacks, and true liberal Democrats fought against those demeaning stereotypes.
Old-time liberal Democrats believed that Israel was a feisty nation, rooted in the Bible, burnished in the terrible crucible of the Holocaust, and to be applauded for fighting against the forces of Communist and Arabist darkness. They would have been unable to comprehend a world in which their party mouthpieces bellowed loudly that Jews are the new Nazis, simply because they are trying to protect their whole country and their individual citizens from being overrun by genocidal, anti-Christian, misogynistic, homophobic, medieval minds.
Those old-time liberals Democrats, who did truly exist, are gone now. To those of you like myself who were once Leftists, but now identify as conservatives, you’re not imagining it: the political party you left beyond has truly gone ’round the bend. They’re all Marxists now.
When seconds count, the police are always minutes (74 minutes in this case) away. Thank God for legal guns.
Because I have a high-energy young dog and a bad knee that precludes more vigorous exercise, I walk a lot. I happen to find this very boring and am grateful for whatever entertainment I can get on my iPhone. A lot of trial and error has revealed that the best app is the one for NPR radio. Using this app, it’s very easy to assign radio segments to a playlist and then to listen to them, one-after-another, on demand. The downside, of course, is that I have to listen to NPR, which I no longer find as entertaining as I did back in my Democrat days. Still, it’s rather fascinating to see from an intellectual distance the Leftist shibboleths that once seemed so normal to me.
The segment that caught my interest today was an interview that Fresh Air’s Terry Gross did with Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, a comedy team on Comedy Central. They are two very talented young men whose entire awareness of self and raison d’etre seems to be race. Both have black fathers and white mothers. Wait! I said that wrong. Terry Gross was oh-so-careful to say “African-American” fathers and “white” mothers. Frankly, I was offended by her skin-color obsession with Key’s and Peele’s mothers. What she should have said if she was going with the skin color was “darkish brown” fathers and “sort of pale peach colored” mothers. And if she was talking continent of origin, of course, she should have extended to the mothers same courtesy she extended to the fathers: “African-American” fathers and “Euro-American” mothers.
Yes, what I just said is totally nonsensical, which is my point. The Left’s racial obsession, as well as the insane racial “sensitivity” Leftist white folks try to show when discussing race, makes all racial interactions uncomfortable. All I could think of was Basil Fawlty, who after being warned not to talk about the war to German guests at his B&B, banged his head and then obsessively (and hilariously) focused on the war. (Imagine my shock when I learned that, in modern Britain, the government almost banned Winston Churchill from a bank note for fear it would offend Germans. The Germans lost that war, but I think even most Germans would agree that, ultimately, if losing wasn’t actually a good thing, Naziism was so foul that they deserved to lose. Churchill helped save them from themselves.)
But back to Key and Peele. . . .
What gave Key and Peele recognition outside of Comedy Central was the first in a series of sketches they did that showed Obama giving a speech in his usual pinched way, with his Luther, his “anger translator” standing behind him saying what he really means. They felt bad for Obama that, because he was black, he couldn’t have a temper tantrum when faced with the slings and arrows of outrageous GOP and Tea Party attacks. This racial view of history ignores pale-peach-colored George Bush handling gracefully the unendingly vicious attacks and lies that came his way. Pale-peach-colored Clinton (aka “the first black president“) was also usually dignified in public, no matter his disgraceful private behavior. To the racially obsessed Key and Peele, though, the black(ish) Obama is the only one who is forced to act dignified when addressing the people of the nation that elected him.
With that horrible handicap in mind, it’s obvious that the following pictures are mere tricks of the camera insofar as they show Obama being anything but dignified and restrained:
Anyway, knowing how Obama suffers in silence, Key and Peele invented Luther, Obama’s “anger translator” (language warning):
Luther is both Obama’s and the Left’s Id. Luther says the truth that the Left dare not say. All Leftists know that when Obama, in his flat, clipped, angry tones is saying bland-ish things, he has a tiger waiting to get out. What’s fascinating about this tiger, as Key and Peele first voiced him in January 2012, is that everything the tiger says is wrong. By that I mean that, when push came to shove, Obama either didn’t have the courage of his alleged anger (the “anger translator” was in error) or he felt free to act upon it himself (the “anger translator” was unnecessary). Need proof? Here:
Obama: First of all, concerning the recent developments in the Middle Eastern region, I just want to reiterate our unquenching support for all people and their right to a democratic process.
Luther: Hey! All y’all dictators out there, keep messing around and see what happens. Just see what happens. Watch!!
Hey, Luther! Obama bowed down before the Muslim Brotherhood, a group open about its goal of denying the “democratic process” to women, Jews, Christians, gays, etc. Obama told Bashir al Assad that he’d drawn a “red line” by gassing his own people. The only problem was that, when Assad essentially said “So what, pretty boy?”, Obama hid behind Vladimir Putin. Put another way, Luther, not only did nothing happen when Obama faced anti-democratic impulses in the Middle East, the reality was that he either sided with the bad guys or ran and hid.
Luther got it wrong about Iran too:
Obama: Also, to the governments of Iran and North Korea, we once again urge you to discontinue your uranium enrichment programs.
Luther: Oh, Mahmoud! Kim Jong! I think I already done told both y’all 86 your sh*t bitches or I’m gonna come over there and do it for y’all. Please test me and see what happens.
Uh, Luther! We’ve got another little problem here. In fact, when Iran tested President Obama, he told them to go right ahead with their enrichment — but to be sure to stop just a few minutes before creating the nuclear warhead with Israel’s name on it. To help this program, Obama un-froze a whole bunch of funds the absence of which had been helping to destabilize the Mullah’s regime. Obama pretty much failed that test. (With regard to North Korea, the whole world is watching in fascinated horror as an allegedly drunk Kim Jong Il nukes his own family.)
Obama didn’t do so well at home, either.
Obama: On the domestic front, I just want to say to my critics, I hear your voices and I’m aware of your concerns.
Luther: So maybe you can chill the Hell out for like a second, and maybe then I can focus on some sh*t, you know?
“I hear your voices.” Really? Does anyone remember January 2009?
After listening to a critique of the nearly nine hundred billion dollars stimulus package from Republican Congressional leaders, along with some helpful suggestions on how to fix it, President Barack Obama had a two word answer.
“I won,” President Obama said, indicating why the Republicans were not going to have any significant input into the bill. President Barack Obama was echoing sentiments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had explained by the House Democratic leadership version of the stimulus bill was going to pass with or without Republicans.
Funnily enough, Obama’s words don’t sound much like “I hear your voices.” They sound a lot more like “Shut the eff up!!” Luther, Obama lied to you, his beloved anger translator.
But wait, there’s more:
Obama: That goes for everybody, including members of the Tea Party.
Luther: Oh, don’t even get me started on these motherf*ckers. Right here (slamming a fist into his palm).
Obama didn’t need Luther to call the Tea Partiers nasty names. When someone recently wrote Obama a letter complaining about his treatment of a group the author called “Tea Baggers,” the President didn’t blink. Instead, he called them “Tea Baggers” too. For those out of the loop, the MSM’s beloved Anderson Cooper (who told the world about the time he proofread his mother’s ruminations about oral sex) coined the term soon after the Tea Party first appeared on the political scene (although he was only one in a long line of immature gay Leftists sniggering about the Tea Party’s name). Given the giggles with which his words were received, it was clear that Cooper, who is gay, and his fellow TV folks all knew that he was referring to a gay sexual practice involving oral sex and testicles.
And so it goes with the rest of the comedy sketch. You can watch the last minute of the video, which is pretty much more of the same.
As fascinating as the video is the reason that Key and Peele felt compelled to give voice to Obama’s id is just as interesting:
We know we’re frustrated when a person like [Rep.] Joe Wilson had , when he was like, “You lie!” to the president. And we were like, “The president can’t react the way millions of Americans right now are going, ‘Ugh!’ He can’t say anything. He can’t rail at this man, he can’t get upset. What if we had a surrogate who could get upset for him?” And that was the embryonic state of creating Luther [the anger translator].
Peele: The way we’ve described it before is that he couldn’t come off like an angry black man, especially early on, so what Luther says are things that ring true to us, and we felt like we were giving the truth a voice in a lot of ways.
First of all, let me say again that Obama isn’t the only president who has to suffer insults in silence. It’s part of the job. He’s not special. Second of all, to the extent that Key and Peele appear upset that Obama had to stand silent as he was being slandered, they’re a little confused. Joe Wilson called out “You lie” when Obama promised that the monies from Obamacare (which Key and Peele, per Democrat party directive, now call “the ACA”) would never go to illegal aliens. The problem (for Key and Peele, at least) is that, while Wilson was rude, he was also accurate. Obama did lie:
Now [August 11, 2011], Wilson’s indictment seems to have been proven right.
On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was awarding a $28.8 million Obamacare grant to 67 community health centers, many of which offer free care to ‘migrant workers,’ in other words…illegal aliens.
HHS spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com that “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers.”
Andrews continued: “Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center. The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status.”
In other words, while Obamacare ostensibly excludes illegal immigrants, the HHS has already handed out Obamacare money to organizations that serve illegal immigrants. Obama’s lie wasn’t white, so much as dark grey.
Watching Key and Peele perform, it’s obvious that these are two extremely talented men. They’re also one-dimensional. To them, the world is solely about race. That’s why Obama gets a pass. Better to lie about his policies and spin fantasies about his accomplishments than to acknowledge that the man is dishonest and inept. A black (darkish brown) president cannot be seen as less than perfect.
This race-obsessed duo is as boring as my once-dynamic high school friends who, when they came out of the closet, defined themselves solely by sexual practices. All their friends were gay, they only went to gay themed entertainment, their politics boiled down to their bedroom proclivities, etc. It wasn’t “Hi, I’m a dentist, and I have two children, and my hobby is archery.” It was “Hi, I’m gay.” Key and Peele don’t introduce themselves to the world as creative thinkers who are talented mimics, wry observers, and quick-wits. Instead, the Fresh Air segment title says it all: “For Key And Peele, Biracial Roots Bestow Special Comedic ‘Power’.” Gawd, how dull!
In a healthy society, race is an incidental, culture is something interesting, and natural talent and hard work are what count. To the NPR crowd, though, it’s all about a person’s “biracial” African American-Euro American status (or, as linguistic purists should be saying) their “biracial” darkish brown-pale peachy pink status. The way in which two talents have been compressed to do service to a party’s continuing racial obsession proves more clearly than anything I’ve seen that the Democrats have had a straight-line racial continuum from the KKK crowd to the NPR crowd. When all is said and done, they are defined by (and, eventually, one hopes undone by) their unsavory racial obsessions.
A liberal friend who despairs of my decision to turn my back on the Democrat Party and declare myself a conservative, sent me an article from Salon. In it, the author smugly explains that he was a life-long libertarian, went to a Ron Paul convention, saw that a lot of the people there were conspiracy theorists, and then joined the Democrat Party.
Here’s the gist of it: the guy grew up in Nevada, in a town that valued guns. He was told that he was a libertarian, so he was. Without showing any actual understanding of the principle’s behind small government and individual freedom, he liked that Ron Paul libertarians want to make pot legal and hate Wars for Oil. In 2008, he went to a Ron Paul convention and was shocked that people there espoused conspiracy views (which Ron Paul followers are famous for doing) and believed that welfare is a bad thing. Then, when the financial meltdown happened in 2008, he opposed the bank bailout (which libertarians opposed), but approved of greatly increasing the welfare state (something libertarians also opposed). Oh, and he “wept with joy” when Obama was inaugurated. As for the Tea Partiers, they were “monsters” who made him want to “puke.” You see, there are “racists” amongst the Tea Partiers, as well as 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Birthers. He then went to a Progressive college to get a degree in creative writing and married a liberal Canadian. And then, pretty much badda-boom, badda-bing, there he was, a happy Democrat.
What this guy utterly fails to see is that he started out with hard-core Leftist ideology — free pot, no War for Oil, don’t give money to evil bankers, government is the solution, Tea Partiers are racist, Obama is a God who causes tears of joy — but by an accident of birth, ended up thinking he was a libertarian. Then, when he figured out that he was a moonbat, he headed for his real political party. It’s not so much a case of conversion as of mistaken identity. “You mean I’m not really Lord Ambrose Wafflepoof-Chilteningham? I am, instead, plain old Comrade John Brown? At last, the world makes sense!”
As for his attacks against the Ron Paul group, I have to agree that I don’t like Ron Paul or his followers either. Their isolationism (which the proto-Democrat convert loved) is dangerous, and their affinity for neo-Nazis and other immoral, bad actors is awful. Paul is too dumb to realize that the neo-Nazis are statists who hide in his Libertarian enclave because they believe it’s the best incubator for people too dumb to realize that the libertarian’s totally laissez faire attitude to everything allows evil to grow as well as good.
The two main problems with the guy’s post are that he (a) never understood true conservativism and (b) conflates Ron Paul libertarians with conservatives. Conservatives embrace constitutional government, not no government. Most conservatives are not conspiracy theorists, although the Birther meme is out there — in part because Obama has withheld evidence (birth certificates and transcripts), either to stir up conspiracy controversy (“Hey, look! I can make my dog crazy by hiding his bone”) or because there really is something to hide (I believe he might be hiding a pretense that he was a foreign national to help him get college admission/aid).
If you want serious conspiracy mavens, look Left. That’s where the Truthers live, that’s were the antisemites who subscribe to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion live, and that’s where the people who focus obsessively on the Koch brothers live. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Koch brothers did anything more than fund the Heartland Institute is irrelevant:
Funnily enough, all these Lefties never seem that exercised about George Soros’ funding of just about everything to the Left, which is as much an exercise of free speech as is the Koch’s funding of the Heartland Institute.
Another conspiracy meme on the Left, one that helped propel Obama back into the White House in 2012 was the spurious war on women. The Left convinced credulous women and metrosexuals that a vote for Romney was a vote to put women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, as forced sex-slaves to slobbering, fat, white Bible-toting Christian males. (In other words, The Handmaid’s Tale.) That this dark vision had no reality outside the pages of a bad 1980s feminist novel is irrelevant.
And of course, there’s the “Tea Party is racist” meme that the guy, studying at his Progressive university, totally accepted. He seems unaware that Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for anyone spotting racism at an Obamacare protest is still out there, unclaimed. If you want racism, look Left.
The guy who wrote the Salon article was never a conservative. He was always a hardcore, big state Leftist who had accidentally wandered into the wrong party. His little post isn’t an indictment of conservativism. It is, instead, a confession of his own lack of self-awareness and facile embrace of the party of the moment.
One of the striking paradoxes in Marin is that the same people who reliably vote for Democrat candidates actually have quite conservative values. In my Marin world, people are educated, ambitious, hard-working, married, and family-oriented, and they happily live in almost entirely white communities. As to that last, it’s not that they would object if a black family moved it. It would simply have to be a black family that was “one of us,” meaning educated, ambitious, etc. Despite their essentially conservative values, these hard-working people support endless welfare; these family-oriented, helicopter parents happily consign poor children to the tender mercies of the state; and these married parents, who have the luxury of a stay-at-home mom, support any policy that advances single motherhood. The Marin dwellers I know are the living embodiment of Charles Murray’s wonderful observation that elite Democrats don’t preach what they practice.
On the rare occasions when I’m able to speak with my friends without using political labels, they invariably agree with me about the benefits of hard work and marriage, about the social and economic virtues of two-parent families, about the problem with the hypersexualization of young children, and about the fact that the best defense against bullies is projecting a strong attitude of self-defense. Point out, though, that these values align them with Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney, who support profiting from ones own labor, being married as a predicate to children, encouraging (although not legislating) a more wholesome popular culture, and projecting American strength abroad, and they’ll back away from you as if you’ve suddenly sprouted horns.
It’s that last phrase that explains why these Democrats, even if their values are completely at odds with their own party, would never, never vote Republican. In their minds, it’s not that
Democrats Republicans have bad ideas; it’s that they’re eeeevvviiiilll. Not just “evil,” but eeeevvviiiilll. To them, Republicans haven’t merely sold their souls to the Devil, which implies that it’s possible to regain those lost souls. Instead, it’s that Republicans have no souls. To the Marin liberal, politics are controlled by a simple syllogism:
Republicans/conservatives are evil.
I am not evil.
Therefore I can never be a Republican/conservative.
But I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, right? For years, conservatives have wryly observed that, while conservative think liberals are misguided, liberals think conservatives are evil. So why am I dragging this old issue to the table? Because now is the time to change this paradigm.
We know from a Harvard study that the young generation is turning against Obama because he betrayed them. Unfortunately, though, despite their disenchantment with Obama, these youngsters aren’t turning to Republicans. Given the fact that Democrats lied and Republicans spoke the truth, these youth voters aren’t making a U-turn and heading for the Republican party. Instead, they’ve opted for a “plague on both your houses” approach to politics.
Their refusal even to contemplate conservativism stems from their constant indoctrination: Republicans are eeeevvviiiilll. In any Hollywood film that touches upon politics (and even in those that don’t), Republicans are evil. In any MSM news story, Republicans are evil. In songs, at award shows, on Twitter, and Facebook, the cascade of obscene, profane, and scatalogical remarks from those on the Left are uniform: Republicans are eeeevvviiiilll.
With Obamacare cratering and Obama being revealed as both incompetent and dishonest, Republicans are trying to figure out how to position themselves as the obvious political alternative. Sadly, the state of American political debate and thinking is not such that conservatives can gain voters by explaining that conservative ideas are better. We take the world as we’re given, though, and that world demands that we suit our argument to our audience. Before they listen to us, they need to like us — or at least they need to stop fearing us. The answer is to run a personality campaign.
When I speak of a “personality campaign,” I refer to gauzy photographs of Republican politicians with their spouses and children. Although that seems to play well to the base, it does nothing to convert the people who think we’re eeeevvviiiilll. Democrats have been trained to view those photographs — when they come from conservatives — as the equivalent of photographs showing Nazi camp guards having tea parties in their homes.
What the RNC and other conservative groups should be producing, instead, are gazillions of one-minute-long commercials and YouTube videos, as well as easy-to-share posters for Facebook and Twitter, all of which focus on ordinary whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics engaging in good acts of the type that thoughtless, but disenchanted, Democrats can understand. Each video or poster should end with the tag line “I’m [fill in the name] and I’m a Republican.”
For example, you might have a video showing an Asian woman working at a homeless shelter, and have it end with her saying “I’m [fill in the name] and I’m a Republican.” Or you have a poster of a black volunteer hard at work for Habitat for Humanity, over the tag line “I’m [fill in the name] and I’m a Republican.” Another video might show someone getting out of a Prius and into a wheelchair, again with the tag line “I’m [fill in the name] and I’m a Republican.
The possibilities are endless, because Republicans are good people, and they actually do many things that make Democrats happy. Posters and videos of beach clean-ups, animal shelter work, homeless shelter work, Big Brother/Big Sister work, tutoring kids at inner city schools, and raising money for African orphanages, would humanize a group of people who have been demonized simply because they believe in the worth of the individual and in maximum individual freedom. When it comes to speaking out to Americans, we need to stop focusing on the politicians, whom the media finds it easy to ridicule and denigrate, and start looking into the Republican community, which is brimful of wonderful, caring, people, for whom being wonderful and ordinary is just a part of their lives.
We cannot convert people to our ideas unless we can convince them that their “conservatives are evil” syllogism is utterly false. The new syllogism should go like this:
Republicans/conservatives are good people.
I share most of their values.
Since the Democrat party has lied and broken its promises, and its ideas have failed, I should vote Republican.
[For those of you who find the ideas in here vaguely familiar, my dear friend Don Quixote made precisely this point many years ago. He was, as is often the case, a clear-sighted visionary.]
At PowerLine, Paul Mirengoff analyzes a Politico article that attempts to assess the political fallout from Obamacare. The Politico writers, says Mirengoff, acknowledge that those in the individual insurance market aren’t feeling the love for the Democrats now, but imply that the majority of these people would have voted Republican in any event. Mirengoff notes, though, this impression is belied by facts in the Politico article:
But later in the article we learn that, according to a survey by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, nearly half of those who brought their own insurance are between the ages of 18 and 44. We also learn, thanks to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, that there is no statistically significant difference between the political party affiliation of those who buy their own health care.
To be sure, when pressed, more people in this group say they lean Republican than Democrat. But the Kaiser poll clearly supports my statement that the party allegiance of Obamacare losers (at least this set of them) is split. Moreover, as one analyst quoted by Politico says, anger over cancellation letters is likely to cross party lines.
In other words, actual numbers suggest that the first wave of Obamacare victims may turn some Democrats into Republican voters, at least temporarily.
Obama and the Democrats, however, are counting on the fact that, for every voter who turns against the Dems because he lost his insurance, his rates went up, and his coverage quality went down, the Dems will still gain voters who got insurance despite preexisting conditions or who benefited from the subsidies that voters with sticker shock are funding. Just as Republicans fear the moment when 51% or more of Americans get government hand-outs, the Democrats look forward to the moment when 51% or more of Americans look to the government for goodies.
What I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are forgetting is that a large segment of that 51% doesn’t vote. How do I know this? Because I have a family member who is part of that 51%. I love this family member, who is an honest, decent person with a great deal of integrity. Nevertheless, her choice of friends leaves something to be desired. (And no, I don’t know what bizarre combination of nature, nurture, and peer pressure resulted in me being a very wholesome professional living an upper-middle-class life in a chi-chi suburb surrounded by children and dogs, while she ended up being a college drop-out living in a trailer park.)
This gal’s friends all get some form of welfare: foods stamps, welfare checks, free clinic health care, etc. Many of them dropped out the employment market years ago. To the extent that they are almost entirely dependent on government largesse, it is in their best interest to vote Democrat. Obamacare definitely increases their fealty to the Democrat party.
The problem that the Democrats have with this cohort, however, is that, while it’s in these people’s best interests to vote Democrat, the same pathologies that leave them dependent on government also mean that most of them can’t or won’t vote. Some are convicted felons (with their criminal records invariably tied to substance abuse), so they can’t vote. All of them are eternally disorganized. A combination of substance abuse, mental health disorders, and old-fashioned stupidity means that these people cannot get their acts together sufficiently to voter their own interests. Most aren’t even registered, and wouldn’t know what to do if they were.
While these people are the Democrats’ natural constituency, they aren’t Democrat voters. Sure, if you do a man on the street interview with one of these people, he’ll talk the party line and sound like he’ll be the first ones at the polls on election day. If you were to go to his house on election day, though, you’d discover him slumped on the couch, beer in one hand and doobie in the other, unaware that he missed his opportunity to keep those welfare checks coming.
Ironically, for a long time, those who have repeatedly voted Democrat for the benefit of this welfare class probably aren’t themselves recipients of welfare. Instead, they’re the true believers, from the working class on up, who look at these pathetic, disorganized, drunk, and drugged masses and think that a vote for the Democrats, by keeping the welfare spigot open, will help these people. Put another way, when we see Democrats win, it’s not because the welfare crowd cast the votes, it’s because the bleeding-heart crowd did it on their behalf.
I realize, of course, that this is a simplification that doesn’t take into account functional poor people who believe that they can survive only with government handouts and who make damn sure to vote for the party in charge of the handouts. These are the voters Republicans need to reach, so that we can explain to them that the Democrats are rather quickly killing off the working- and middle-class geese who have been laying the golden eggs that have then been redistributed to the welfare class. Destroy your tax base and there’s no more welfare. These same people need to be convinced that welfare does not need to be a way of life. And more specifically, blacks need to understand that, just because slavery was work, not all work is slavery.
Obamacare is going to have a very profound effect on Democrat voters, I suspect, but not in the way Democrats hope and Republicans fear. The Democrats screwed by Obamacare and insulted by Obama’s lies will have their “come to Jesus moments” and may well shift political allegiance, even if only temporarily. On the flip side, those who voted (and I mean actually cast a vote) for the Democrats and who are not screwed, will continue to vote Democrat. But the poorest people, the ones who now have heavily subsidized, gold-plated health insurance, will not suddenly rush to the polls. Health insurance or not, their pathologies will continue to render them incapable of the mental organization required for sending in an absentee ballot or getting out of the house and to the polling station on election day.
Obamacare fails at so many levels it’s hard to count them. It fails because it’s the only piece of significant legislation in American history to be passed on strict partisan lines, using procedural tricks and bribes, and with a majority of American people disapproving of it. It fails because its implementation violates American religious freedom insofar as it forces people of faith to fund abortion and birth control. It fails because the administration knowingly used lies to pass it, a tactic that has a legal name: fraud.
Obamacare fails because it turns people into slaves to the government, making its opponents the new abolitionists. It fails because tens of millions of Americans will lose the insurance they were promised they could keep. It fails because it raises insurance costs for millions of Americans who believed Obama’s blatant lie that their average annual costs would decrease substantially. And of course, it fails because the Obamacare exchanges are so dysfunctional that the only parts that work are the routine breaches of privacy.
Right now, owing to all those failures, Americans are not happy with either Obama or Obamacare. Democrats are unsympathetic. Rep. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.) sloughed off American concerns. According to the National Journal, he had a simple message for Americans: “Change is hard. Get over it. Barack Obama is president, and the Affordable Care Act is the law.”
Actually, this is not a new Democrat message. In the years preceding the Civil War, they kept telling Americans to “get used to” slavery, because “it’s the law.” And in the post-Civil War era, when Jim Crow laws depriving blacks of their civil rights were enacted throughout the South, the Democrats had the same message: “Get over it. It’s the law.”
Put another way, whenever slavery is at issue — and this is true whether it shows itself straightforwardly as “slavery,” or masquerades under such euphemisms as “Jim Crow” or “Obamacare” — the Democrat message has been the same for 160 years: “Get over it. It’s the law.”
(I originally wrote this post for Mr. Conservative.)
The repulsive Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson made news yesterday by putting out a fundraising letter that likens the Tea Party to the KKK (which, during its heyday, was an entirely Democrat organization):
Today, in a very timely way, Caped Crusader sent me the first sensible gun-control proposal I’ve seen, when that gets to the heart of the violence underlying gun crime:
In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 Adam Lazna, the child of a registered Democrat, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
Recently, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I’ve heard to date. JUST SAYING.
When it comes to my cold, I’m seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. Whew! I’m hoping to be up to full blogging speed soon but, in the meanwhile, here are things I found when doing my usual morning reading rounds:
This is a marvelous paragraph from Karen McQuillan’s generally marvelous article about Obamacare’s failures:
People with common sense and reality-based principles — in a word, conservatives — understand that government programs are by definition political. Politicians and bureaucrats are not personally accountable for failure, as in the private sector, so failure is acceptable to them. Cost overruns, fraud, and poor service are the norm in government programs for a reason.
Randall Hoven, who treats numbers with respect, says that the RINOs who blame the Tea Party for the Republicans’ failure to hold a Senate majority are delusional. In fact, the Tea Party did wonderful things for Republicans.
Charles C. W. Cooke, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite writers, chimes in with a Tea Party defense too.
If you want a nice, tidy run-down of the Obamacare exchange’s disastrous debut, John Fund has got it for you.
Roger Simon thinks that Obamacare will defund itself very quickly as healthy young people refuse to buy insurance. That brings up two points. The first, of course, is whether Republicans have a plan so that Dems don’t use the system’s inevitable collapse as a gateway to socialized medicine. The second is whether Obamacare changed the law requiring emergency rooms to treat all-comers? I don’t believe it did. As the numbers of uninsured grows, rather than decreases, under Obamacare, what’s going to happen to hospitals?
Victor Davis Hanson sees a lot of economic problems on the horizon for the Democrats. Of course, to the extent that these are problems for America, too, let’s hope that the Republicans have a plan. My unhappy feeling is that, as long as the John McCain caucus remains, the only plan the GOP has is to get rid of Ted Cruz.
The AP isn’t feeling the love for Obama the way it used to. Perhaps that’s because Obama spied on it. In any event, one AP reporter is complaining that the White House is stonewalling about Obamacare enrollment numbers. Hmmm. I wonder why?
How bad are the Obamacare exchanges? So bad that the Consumer Reports advice column is downright nasty and ultimately tells people to stay away from the exchanges.
The Obama administration brings Chicago-style shakedowns to Wall Street. The implications are definitely worrisome, but I’d feel more sorry for Wall Street if it hadn’t eagerly gotten into bed with Obama once he became president. Lie down with political dogs and it’s not that you get up with fleas, it’s that they savage you and leave your gnawed carcass in the gutter.
Do you have anything to add?
An anonymous Obama administration insider explained why the President and the Senate are refusing to compromise, even to the point of refusing to accept piecemeal funding for expenditures everyone supports:
Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”
Allahpundit thinks that the administration official is correct: the public blames the Republicans, and that won’t change. While it wasn’t a smart thing to say out loud, it’s true and saying it won’t change that truth:
That the White House feels this way is a “secret” the way Israel’s nukes are a “secret.” The reality is clear to everyone, but no good can come from formal acknowledgment.
The corollary to that, of course, is that the more the public suffers from the government being closed, the more the White House “wins.” That’s the essence of shutdown theater. Crazy theory: Maybe the reason the White House isn’t factoring public hardship into its strategic thinking is because, for all its blather, it doesn’t believe that there is much hardship. Furloughed workers will get back pay; people who can’t visit national parks are inconvenienced, but not so much so that Democrats will give up their opportunity to “win” politically because of it. And what about the cases of real, life-or-death hardship that need to be addressed urgently? You already got your answer on that.
Troy Senik has a more sanguine view, which is that this is the kind of statement the administration is desperately wishing it could walk back. It speaks to the sociopathy within the White House, where politics is the only game, and the well-being of both America and Americanis irrelevant:
Whatever the case, this Administration has a gift for handing the press the worst possible characterization of their actions. Remember, it was an unattributed source who gave us “leading from behind” as the rallying cry for Libya. Ditto the recent declaration that the Administration’s response to Syria would be “just muscular enough to not get mocked.” (Step 1: Set bar incredibly low, Step 2: trip over it). Now, in today’s Wall Street Journal, yet another verbal kamikaze is in the cockpit:
Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”
If you characterize the shutdown as a disaster in the making and then publicly declare that you’re willing to ride it out as long as necessary to maximize your political advantage, there’s only two possible interpretations: (1) you were lying about the severity of the situation in the first place or (2) you’re happy to let the country suffer as long as it allows you to put points on the board.
John Boehner gave one of the hardest-hitting, angriest press conferences I’ve ever seen him give. I thought it was quite good, and wish he could get roused to that kind of passion more often.
You know, when we have a crisis like we’re in the middle of this week, the American people expect their leaders to sat down and try to resolve their differences. I was at the White House the other night and listened to the president some twenty times explain to me why he wasn’t going to negotiate. I sat there and listened to the majority leader in the United States Senate describe to me that he’s not gonna talk until we “surrender.” And then this morning, I get the Wall Street Journal out, and it says “Well, we don’t go how long this thing lasts because we’re winning .
This isn’t some damn game! The American people don’t want their government shutdown and neither do I. All we’re asking for is to sit down and have a discussion and to bring fairness, reopen the government, and to bring fairness to the American people under Obamacare. It’s as simple as that but, it all has to begin with a simple discussion (Emphasis in original.)
What do you think? Is it all over except for the victory shouting on the Obama side? Or is the administration displaying some serious hubris here.
Before you answer, a little data about the Gingrich-led shutdown, which is what’s guiding the Democrat strategy this time around:
But what really happened in 1995? A Gallup set of surveys illuminates:
1. President Clinton’s popularity rating went down by 10%, from 52% before the shutdown to 42% after.
2. Gingrich’s approval went up slightly. You have to read Gallup’s fine print in the survey to actually figure this out.
3. Congressional approval went up from 30% to 35%. The Congress was Republican. Realize that today’s approval numbers are around 10%.
President Clinton did go on to win re-election in 1996, with the help of Ross Perot, though he did not get a majority of the votes. Furthermore, Clinton won by signaling his compliance with the Republican Congress’s demands for fiscal limits — in fact, in January of 1996, Clinton famously declared in his State of the Union message that “the era of big government is over.” He was met by thunderous applause and sustained interruption in a Republican chamber that viewed the moment as a political signal of defeat for Democrats.