Liberal Control of Pop Culture, the Mainstream Media and the Colleges help push their Minority Views onto the Majority
What do you think the breakdown of people in the United States is? Politically speaking. What are the percentages of conservatives, liberals and moderates? If you watch/listen/read a lot of pop culture you no doubt think conservatives are in the minority. If you listen to the mainstream media you no doubt think that conservatives are in the minority. If you’re young and/or are in college you no doubt think that conservatives are in the minority. Would it surprise you to learn that conservatives are actually in the majority? Well, then, surprise.
According to Gallup, in 2011 40% of the American people identified themselves as conservative. While 35% identified themselves as moderate. And only 21% identified themselves as liberal. Surprising, huh? Especially when the ‘appropriate’ behavior appears to be to snicker at and belittle conservatives these days. Forcing them into the closet. For one thing you never hear of is a closet-liberal. No, they can be in your face. Any time. Any place. And it’s okay. But a conservative has to lower his or her voice and look around first to see if it’s ‘okay’ to express his or her political opinion. Why is that?
Well, it helps to control the major channels of communication. Pop culture. The mainstream media. And colleges. It also helps that young adults want to escape the responsible parenting of their parents so they can party and have as much sex that is humanly possible. Which makes them a very useful pawn for liberals to advance their minority views. Because liberals aren’t their parents. But they act and talk like their parents. When they attack their parents. With an air of all-knowing condescension. Exasperation. And arrogance. The only difference between kids’ parents and these liberals is that kids’ parents are trying to do what is best for their kids. While liberals are trying to do what is best to advance their minority views.
Liberals speak with such Arrogant Confidence that it makes Some People Feel that they Must be Right
Women fall for bad boys. Even though they are not particularly bright. Or have great earning potential. That’s why so many women can never find true happiness in a relationship. At least based on the high divorce rates. It’s just the way it is. Because women aren’t attracted to short, fat, balding guys that have good but boring careers. No matter how beautiful they are on the inside. No. These women are attracted to the men that will ultimately cheat on them. These men who can’t stand the thought of being in a monogamous relationship. Because they are bad boys. Rebels. Nonconformists. Alpha males. Confident and cocky. Who don’t like having any limits placed on them. And want to enjoy every moment of life. Especially since feminists have empowered women. Giving them all the birth control and access to abortion they need to please these alpha males. Which lets these men enjoy as many women sexually as is humanly possible. No, marriage is not for them. Neither is a monogamous relationship. For there is just too much passion in their hearts for one woman.
Everyone is attracted to the alpha male. Women want to be with them. And men want to be around them. To be like them. To enjoy a little of their world. For arrogance is attractive. People are attracted to strong people who are sure of themselves. Who never doubt themselves. And feel safer whenever they are around. Like the cowboys in the Old West. When life was scary. And nothing made you feel safer than having a manly cowboy around to protect you. And this is how liberals advance their minority view. It’s their arrogance that makes people feel that they must be right. For they speak with such confidence. Without a shadow of doubt. And anyone so sure and so full of themselves must know what they are talking about. Besides, they make the stuff we want to do (like having a lot of sex) seem the right thing enlightened people do.
But arrogance and intelligence are not the same thing. Pick your favorite celebrity who’s attacked a conservative. Or conservative policies. And ask yourself if you think they understand economics. Do they understand that high inflation is a monetary problem? That governments cause high prices by printing too much money? Do they know that stimulus spending fails to stimulate the economy because sellers increase their prices to offset the coming inflation (rational expectations)? Before anyone spends that stimulus money? Resulting in no new economic activity. Only higher prices. Do they understand that everyone prices oil on the international market in U.S. dollars? And that government inflation causes gasoline prices to rise (as the oil sellers raise their prices to offset that inflation)? Do they understand that government regulations are another cost of business that businesses add to their selling prices? Do they understand that jobs in the private sector pay for all government spending including all government jobs? Do they know that free markets have promoted equality and reduced discrimination (women have a better life in a country with free markets than they do in a country like Iran)? Do they know that Karl Marx was wrong in his economic thinking (as technology increases in capitalistic countries workers see their wages rise over time, not fall into perpetual poverty)?
Liberals can push their Minority Views onto the Majority because of the Perception that their Views are the Majority
Of course they don’t know. They haven’t the foggiest clue about things economic. And are only liberals so no one picks on them for their obscene wealth and their extravagant lifestyles. No. They don’t attack conservatives for economic reasons. They attack them because they’ve just learned that it’s appropriate to attack conservatives. To snicker at them. To belittle them. Which they learned from their pop culture. From the mainstream media. And from our colleges. They don’t know how to articulate their beliefs. Because they don’t understand what they criticize. And mask their ignorance with an air of all-knowing condescension. Exasperation at those who disagree with them. And, of course, arrogance. By attacking and ridiculing conservatives. But never engaging them in an ideological debate.
And this is how the 21% pushes their minority views on the majority population. It’s sort of like real estate. It’s all about perception. Because they have pop culture, the mainstream media, the colleges and young adults (who want an alternative to their parents so they can have fun) their views appear to be in the majority. Not in the minority. So their views appear to be the ‘right’ views. Just like that story about a small realtor who has only two signs in town. One on the road into town. And one on the road out of town. Making people driving on that road think, “Wow. This must be the biggest realtor in town. I see their signs everywhere.”
And so it is with liberalism. When people hear their minority views everywhere they feel that these views are the ‘biggest’ views in town. And don’t question the ideology supporting them. Or the economics. Or the history of their failure.
Tags: alpha males, arrogance, Business, celebrity, college, condescension, confidence, conservative, economic, exasperation, ideology, inflation, intelligence, liberal, mainstream media, majority, minority, minority views, moderate, oil, parents, pop culture, stimulus, young adults
The Founding Fathers pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor
People have protested and died fighting for the right to vote throughout history. The American Revolutionary War was over taxation without representation. Meaning that the American colonies wanted representation in British Parliament. Something the British government did not allow. Worse, they started taxing the Americans. Who had no representation in Parliament. And this did not go over well with the American colonists. They had had enough. They wanted a say in their government.
So the Founding Fathers committed treason. They signed the Declaration of Independence. And fought 8 years to have that say in their government. It took awhile. And a lot of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered for their treason. They lost their property. Their wealth. And even their families. Who suffered all sorts of brutality at the hands of the British. These traitors. Who defied their king. But the cause persevered. And the Americans won their independence. As well as their right to self-government.
Back then people cared. Enough to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. But today? People have other priorities in life. Where reality television is more important in their lives than having that say in their government. For they have no idea what the Founding Fathers paid to give us this cushy life of plenty. And just assume the good times will continue to roll. Especially if they keep voting for whoever promises to give them more free stuff.
Candidates move to the Center after Winning their Party’s Nomination and become someone Completely Different
In the country that struggled for 8 years to get the right to vote. In the country that inspired people all around the world to follow them in the pursuit of happiness. In the very bastion of liberty and self-government. In America. Guess how many people vote today in a typical presidential election. Little more than half of eligible voters. And that’s in the general election. It’s far worse in the primary election. Where we see maybe half of that turnout. Which is rather sad. Considering that these are the people who actually pay attention to politics. For this is where a political party chooses their candidate for the general election. You see, each party has a platform. A set of political ideas. Their core philosophy. And the people choose who they think will best advance their party platform in the primary election.
So during the primary election candidates try to be that candidate. The one who will best advance the party platform. Typically the conservative moves as far right as possible to show his or her conservative bona fides. And the liberal moves as far left as possible to show his or her liberal bona fides. Here they’re trying to appeal to the party base. The hardcore. Those who are as far away from the political center as is possible. Those who don’t give a whit about compromise or bipartisanship. They want a purebred candidate that will take the country where they feel it should be. They don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle and compromise away their most cherished principles.
The population roughly breaks down to 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate/independent. Which is all fine and dandy during the primary election. But it’s a bit of a problem during the general election. For that 40% moderate/independent forms the political center. That area the candidates run away from during the primary election. So they must scramble back to it after winning their party’s nomination. And hope that most of those in the center didn’t pay attention during the primary. To make the lying easier. To no longer be who they said they were during the primary. But to be someone completely different. Someone who can reach across the aisle. Someone who can compromise away their base’s most cherished principles. Someone who believes politics should be bipartisan. Or, better still, nonpartisan. In other words, the last person their base would want.
When the Choice is between two Moderates, Democrats will always Choose the Democrat Moderate
Liberals have to run to the center. For their base only amounts to about 20% of the electorate. But it’s not quite the same for conservatives. At 40% of the electorate they don’t have to run the center. They only need another 10% or so of the vote to win. So running to the center actually hurts them. Because a lot of that political center is Democrat. And if the vote comes down to 2 moderates they’re going to vote for the Democrat moderate over the Republican moderate every time. Because all things being equal, a Democrat will vote for a Democrat.
When the Republicans ran a moderate who campaigned as someone who would reach across the aisle and compromise away his base’s most cherished principles, John McCain didn’t get the moderate vote. They voted for the Democrat. Who lied during the general election and ran as a moderate. Sometimes he even talked like a conservative. Even though Barack Obama was as liberal as they came. At least based on his voting record in public office.
When Republican Ronald Reagan won his party nomination he didn’t run to the center. He remained a conservative. And he won. Because a lot of Democrats voted for him. The Reagan Democrats. Because there was a real difference between him and Jimmy Carter. There was a conservative and a liberal. And the Reagan Democrats decided to vote for the conservative because they liked the conservative message better than the liberal message. But when the choice is between two moderates who promise to reach across the aisle more than the other there’s no real difference between the candidates. And no reason to vote for the other guy when he or she is no different than the one from your own party.
Ignoring the Primary Elections ignores the Philosophical Debate and turns the General Election into a Populist Contest
It is a shame the level of voter apathy in the country that stands for self-government. Almost half of the eligible voters ignore politics 3 years out of 4. And only vote in the presidential general election. It’s a shame because we have a 2-party system. Like it or not. There are only two core political philosophies to choose from. For those in the middle don’t have a philosophy. A party. A party platform. A primary election. Or a political convention. They only get involved once every 4 years at the general election. And ultimately end up voting for a Democrat or a Republican. Even though they refuse to identify themselves with either party.
But ignoring the primary elections ignores the party platforms. The meat and potatoes of the philosophical debate. And turns the general election into nothing but a populist contest. True democracy. Mob rule. With the winner often being the one who promises the most to the least politically informed.
Politics has come a long way since the Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It’s probably a good thing they’re not here to see what has become of their self-government. They wouldn’t like what they would see. Especially the voter apathy.
Tags: apathy, bipartisan, bipartisanship, candidate, Center, compromise, conservative, Declaration of Independence, Democrat, election, electorate, eligible voters, Founding Fathers, general, general election, independent, Left, liberal, moderate, party base, party nomination, party platform, philosophy, political party, politics, primary, primary election, reach across the aisle, Reagan, Reagan Democrats, Republican, Right, right to vote, Ronald Reagan, self-government, treason, vote, voter apathy, voters
Week in Review
Once again someone is advising the Republican Party how to pick their candidate. And apparently the ideal Republican candidate would be a Democrat (see Jon Huntsman’s Vision for the US Military by E.D. Kain posted 11/24/2011 on Forbes).
It’s become increasingly clear to me what a shame it is that the Republican Party is so in thrall to its far-right fringe. If they weren’t, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman might stand a chance at the GOP nomination. That would be a good thing for the Republican Party and for the United States.
It would be good for the Republican Party because Huntsman has broad appeal outside of the conservative base. He also has presidential good looks, has command of the issues, and manages to be at once reasonable and articulate in a debate that has teetered too often between the ludicrous and the absurd.
So, the Republican Party, the party of conservatism, would be best served by nominating a candidate that isn’t a conservative? Didn’t we try this already? Didn’t we nominate John McCain because he was everything this guy says Huntsman is? Well, everything perhaps except being handsome. And how did that work for us? Not good. Because the moderate voters chose the other moderate in the general election. Barack Obama. And he was only lying about being a moderate to boot.
The last great Republican president was Ronald Reagan. And why did we elect him with such overwhelming majorities? Could it be because he ran as an unabashed conservative? You bet. Because the voters in a center-right nation didn’t want someone who could reach across the aisle and cave on issues conservatives hold dear. Like John McCain campaigned that he was only more than willing to do.
When they compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan during election times you know running as a conservative wins elections. Republicans should try that. Running conservative candidates. And forget about reaching across the aisle. For the Democrats don’t. The only time they feign interest in bipartisan cooperation is when they’ve lost Congressional majorities. And can’t dictate policy anymore to the minority party.
Tags: Barack Obama, conservatism, conservative, Democrat, elections, John McCain, Jon Huntsman, moderate, Reagan, Republican candidate, Republican Party, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
Moderates just want to Get Along with Everyone and Believe in Consensus and Bipartisanship
Moderates are people who like to pick and choose. A little from this philosophy. And a little from that philosophy. For example, a moderate Catholic may approve of abortion. Because they disagree with the extreme view of no abortions in Catholicism. Of course, there is no such thing as being a little bit Catholic. Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant.
A moderate, then, has no philosophical basis. And doesn’t have a definite opinion. They don’t know what they want. But they know what they don’t want. Extreme opinions. Even just your run of the mill opinions. To them everything is just an opinion. And no opinion is right. Or wrong. It’s just an opinion. And they don’t like to face the extreme unpleasantness that is life. They’d rather avoid addressing problems that can make life unpleasant. So they procrastinate. And are great procrastinators. Their motto is this. Why solve today what we can solve tomorrow? And then they hope that tomorrow never comes.
Moderates just want to get along with everyone. They believe in consensus. Reaching across the aisle. Bipartisanship. For they believe that there is a middle ground in every issue. And they desperately seek the middle ground to avoid confrontation. Which means that you can lie to them. If you tell them what they want to hear. And they will believe you. Because they want to believe you. Especially if you’re telling them what they want to hear.
Adolf Hitler lied Charismatically to Win Votes and Seize Power
Moderates are good people. Who can be led astray. Such as in Nazi Germany. The vast majority of Germans were not Nazis. If they were they wouldn’t have needed such an oppressive police state. And there would have been no Gestapo. But there was a police state. And a Gestapo.
Most Germans just wanted to work. And support their families. Which was hard to do coming out of World War I, the Great Depression and hyperinflation. Caused by Keynesian policies. That is, printing money. To pay their war reparations per a rather harsh Versailles Treaty.
Adolf Hitler knew how to sweet talk the masses. Tell them what they wanted to hear. And he did. He was charismatic. A populist. Could give a great speech. And he lied through his teeth. The people heard what they wanted to hear. And they voted for him. That’s right. Hitler didn’t seize power in a military coup. He seized power by winning votes. And passing populist laws. After he had failed to seize power in a military coup.
Moderates may not Know what they Want but they Sure Know what they Don’t Want, such as National Health Care
In the U.S. the moderates typically determine elections. Because about 40% of the people are limited-government conservatives. About 20% are big-government liberals. And the rest are moderates. And they tend to vote Democrat. Because the Democrats say the things they want to hear. Consensus. Bipartisan. Working together to solve the people’s problems.
Some big-government liberals run as conservatives during elections. And they lie so well that often a large percentage of these moderates vote Democrat. Because, for some reason, they want to vote conservative. But only if the conservative is a Democrat.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned as moderates. In fact, some even compared Barack Obama to the great Ronald Reagan. A conservative Republican. And it worked. Clinton and Obama won their elections. By lying. They campaigned as limited-government moderates. But they governed as big-government liberals. They swung so far to the left that they both lost their mid-term elections. Clinton lost the midterms for trying to pass Hillarycare. And Obama loss the midterms for passing Obamacare.
The moderates may not know what they want. But they know what they don’t want. And they sure don’t want national health care.
The Consequence of having no Philosophical Basis is that Decisions are based on Populist Views and Feelings
Moderates don’t like extreme opinions. Like the government can’t spend money it doesn’t have. So Democrats campaign saying they will get the rich to pay their fair share. Which sounds good. Because moderates aren’t rich. They’re hardworking middle class people. So moderates vote Democrat because it seems like the nice thing to do. The fair thing to do. So the government continues to spend money it doesn’t have. Knowing that they can continue in their irresponsible ways as long as they can get moderates to believe their lies.
This is the consequence of having no philosophical basis. Decisions are based on populist views. And feelings. Which a cunning big-government liberal politician can always exploit. And they have to if they ever hope to win an election. For they aren’t going to convert the 40% of the people who are limited-government conservatives. Because limited-government conservatives actually believe in something. And tend to be impervious to their lies.
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, big-government liberals, Bill Clinton, bipartisanship, Catholic, charismatic, Clinton, consensus, conservatives, Democrat, election, elections, extreme opinions, liberals, lie, lies, limited-government conservatives, lying, middle ground, moderate, moderate opinions, moderate views, moderates, Obama, opinion, opinions, philosophical basis, philosophy, politics, populist, Republican
When America Changed
The youth movement during the Vietnam War destroyed LBJ. And lost the Vietnam War. The college protests. The explosion in drug use. Free love. Race riots. American terrorists bombing government buildings. Timothy Leary. Rock stars promoting drug use. Dying from drug use. And leading the youth movement in their anti-war, anti-establishment protests. This youth was everything their parents weren’t. It changed America forever. And not for the better.
The problem with the youth is that they’re young. They are inexperienced. And don’t know much. But when they learn a few things, look out, they then think they now know everything. Thanks to some manipulative college professors who fed these kids’ intellectual vanity. Told them that they could make a difference. And then these kids set out to change the world. Often with violent protest. Mob violence. Which was new in America. The youth protested the Vietnam War because they were drafting the youth to fight it. Or just because protesting was fun. But their protests only extended the war. For the Tet Offensive almost ended the war in 1968. The Americans hammered the NVA and the Viet Cong. Everywhere. And yet Walter Cronkite took to television and said the war was lost. Further inflaming the anti-war youth movement. Riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Protests at Kent State that ended in the shooting of 4 students by national guardsmen. Sparking violent protests on college campuses everywhere. Our enemies in Vietnam saw this and couldn’t believe what they were seeing. And they learned something. They didn’t need to win the war. They just needed not to lose the war. So they adopted a Fabian strategy. And sacrificed their people until the Americans grew weary of killing them. Which they did. Some 7 years later.
These college students grew up and became teachers. College professors. And have been trying to change the world ever since. By teaching their students to be like them. Feeding these kids’ intellectual vanity. Making them feel important. That they, too, can change the world. If they do as they did.
Tell the Youth what kind of Underwear you Wear and they’ll Vote for You
Walter Cronkite eventually admitted his liberal bias. He was probably the first that went from reporting news to influencing events. At least, the first that mattered. For he was the most trusted man in America. The transformation of the mainstream media soon followed. Gone were the days of Brinkley and Huntley. The days of passive news coverage was over. And the point of no return was the Watergate scandal. Never before did the media destroy a presidential administration. Like they did with the Republican Richard Nixon. The media bias was set. And became a part of liberal politics.
It was a perfect match. The youth movement. And the media. Together they would advance policy and influence elections. The media would control the message. And advance the liberal bias of public education. Instilled by those radicals of the Sixties. And you can see it really come together in the 1992 presidential campaign. Where Bill Clinton ran against the incumbent George H.W. Bush (Read my lips; no new taxes). Who had record approval ratings a couple of years earlier with the Gulf War victory. He was so unbeatable that no ‘first string’ Democrat candidates entered the race. Then a few things happened. He made a deal with the House to raise taxes in exchange for future spending cuts. The boob. Democrats never follow through on spending-cut promises. And Ross Perot.
Now, according to the exit polling, Ross Perot took an equal amount of votes from each candidate. Maybe he did. Maybe his third-party candidacy didn’t help Clinton by taking votes away from Bush. But he did do something else. There was a reason Clinton wasn’t a ‘first string’ candidate. He was flawed. There was some dirt in his past. Some scandal. But no one heard about. Because the little guy with the big ears who talked funny and had all those charts and graphs just fascinated everyone. It took the attention away from Clinton’s past. With a kind assist from the media. Who with their liberal bias helped their liberal candidate. And then Clinton went on MTV and told the kids what kind of underwear he wore. And played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. He was a hit with the kids. The 18-24 demographic made up 11% of the votes. And that 11% split 46%-33% in favor of Clinton with 21% going to Perot. Did the youth vote push Clinton over Bush? They definitely helped. But more important is the lesson learned. There are a lot of youth voters. Historically it hasn’t been easy getting them to the polls. Because they’re kids who don’t think about politics or elections. They’re thinking about having fun. But if you can get them to the polls, and if you can get them to vote for you, they can make a difference. And Clinton showed how to do it.
Organizing the Youth Vote to Compensate for a Lack of Qualifications
In 2008, the Democrats ran the most unqualified candidate for president they ever ran. Barack Hussein Obama. A man that never had a real job. Or any executive experience. He had no foreign policy credentials. The only thing on his resume was a partial term as a U.S. senator. And a stint as a state senator. Oh, and he was a community organizer. Young, inexperienced and wholly unqualified, he was the man to beat. It should have been an easy task. But the Republicans let the media pick their candidate. During the primaries the media gave John McCain glowing coverage. Said he was what the Republican Party needed. Someone who can reach across the aisle. And govern as a moderate. Of course, they were just blowing smoke. Because the last thing they wanted was a conservative running against Obama. Because they were sure that in a campaign between two moderates, they could get their moderate elected.
What Obama lacked in experience and qualifications he made up in organizing a campaign. He was an excellent candidate. And ran an excellent campaign. He tapped into that youth vote. Who were fed up. Never in all of their 18-24 years were they as upset as they were during the 2008 campaign. The economy. Affordable housing. Jobs. Health care. The Iraq War. Things that didn’t touch their lives at all while they were ensconced in their cozy college utopias, living off the generosity of mommy and daddy. But Obama heard them. And told them that he heard them. Finally, someone who cared. And someone who wasn’t George W. Bush.
The youth would be his foot soldiers. Coming from Chicago, that’s something you need. He called for volunteers. And got volunteers. Some 4 million. And being the kids they were they knew how to use the Internet. They knew how to surf. How to design websites. How to ask for donations. And boy did they. They left the old man (McCain) in the dust. The Obama campaign was awash in cash. Even after beating a very well connected Hillary Clinton in the primary. It may have been her turn. But Obama never got that memo. Besides she was old. And had baggage (i.e., Bill Clinton). Obama was young. And new. He was everything and a bag of Skittles. First time voters turned out in droves. And voted for him 68% of the time. In a year with a record turnout of youth voters.
Young and Dumb wins Elections
It’s difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. So it’s important to teach the young what you want them to know. For once they’re thinking ‘correctly’ it’ll be hard to change their mind. Oh, sure, it’ll happen. As they grow up and mature. But you’ll get a few elections out of them before that happens. And, if you’re lucky, maybe they’ll become a teacher. Or a public sector worker. Or a journalist. But the sad reality is that a lot of these people will get jobs in the private sector. Raise families. And eventually become conservative.
That’s why in every election there is a ‘get out the vote’ campaign. To get as many fist time voters as possible. Kids who are politically unaware. Who know nothing about history or economics. Blank slates. Just waiting to be initiated. Indoctrinated. To become good Democrat voters. Because America is a center-right country. And the majority of people work in the private sector. Are politically aware. They know history and economics. And vote conservative. Which is why the Democrats don’t want to campaign against a conservative candidate. And will use the media to get as many John McCains as possible as their Republican candidate. Because history has proven that a John McCain and a large youth vote will get a Democrat candidate elected.
Tags: Anti-war, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton, center-right country, college professors, college protests, conservative, Democrats, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, liberal bias, mainstream media, make a difference, media bias, moderate, Republicans, Richard Nixon, Ross Perot, Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite, Watergate, wise vote, youth movement, youth vote
Obama is not the Liberal Liberals thought he Was
The liberal base of the Democrat Party isn’t happy with President Obama. He’s not liberal enough. Even though he’s the most liberal president to have occupied the White House. And he’s done a lot. But not enough. Sure, he gave them Obamacare. But he didn’t give them the public option. And he’s done things that just boggle a liberal’s mind. He said he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then he bombed Libya. The base is not amused (see Democrats’ Disgust With Obama by Patricia Murphy posted 4/14/2011 on The Daily Beast).
For many Democrats, the budget bill was only the latest in a string of disappointments served up from the White House since 2009, when Obama swept into office on a tide of goodwill and a platform of base-pleasing promises they say he hasn’t lived up to. On the list are his pledges to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, pass comprehensive immigration reform, and end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans…
Some legislative grumbling is inevitable when a party returns to power after eight years. But a number of Democrats are past protesting the president, discussing among themselves ways to recruit a primary challenger in 2012.
A primary challenger in 2012? It’s possible. The latest Gallup poll shows him at a 41% job approval rating. Worse, with independents, it’s down to 35%. And this is a problem. If you keep losing independents, you simply don’t win elections. So not only is Obama disappointing the liberal base, he’s becoming a liability for the Democratic ticket. If they can’t win with Obama, why not challenge him in the primary?
The Problem Liberals have is that they’re only 20% of the Population
So independents are abandoning Obama. Why? Probably because he lied to them. He campaigned as a moderate. But governed as a liberal. The near trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing. Obamacare that was fast-tracked through Congress. And all the job-killing policies. Unemployment (U-3) is still flirting with 9%. A more realistic unemployment number (U-6) is closer to 15%. And gas prices have broken $4 already and the summer driving season isn’t even here yet. Sure, all good news for liberals. More problems for Big Government to fix. But the problem is, most of the people aren’t liberals (see In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals by Lydia Saad posted 6/25/2010 on Gallup).
Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.
And this is why independents are abandoning Obama. Independents aren’t liberals. Independents and moderates bought into all that hope and change stuff because they really hated George W. Bush. But there isn’t a George W. Bush to hate anymore. It’s going on two and a half years. They gave Obama a chance. And they don’t like his record. Or the unemployment. It’s as simple as that. All they need is a Reagan-like candidate to ask that question again. Are you better off now than you were four years ago? And whoever that candidate is, we will hyphenate his or her name to ‘Democrats’. And these Democrats will be like the Reagan-Democrats. Who did to Jimmy Carter what a new batch of Democrats may do to Obama. Make him a one term president.
Unemployment still High, Inflation and Misery trending Up
And speaking of Jimmy Carter, things are really going Jimmy Carter (see Food and gas costs push consumer prices higher by Christopher S. Rugaber, Associated Press, on 4/14/2011 on USA Today).
The Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% in March, the Labor Department said Friday. That matched February’s increase, the largest since the recession ended in June 2009. In the past 12 months, the index has increased 2.7%, the biggest rise since December 2009.
Hard to read that with a straight face. The recession ended in June 2009? Really? Apparently, a lot of people didn’t get that memo. Like the 15% who can’t find a job.
Consumers are spending more, but the steep rise in food and gas prices could limit their ability to purchase discretionary goods and services. Consumer spending makes up 70% of economic activity.
Rising inflation has caused many analysts to reduce their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter from roughly 3% or higher to as low as 1.5%.
Gasoline jumped 5.6% last month and has risen nearly 28% in the past year. Consumers paid an average price of $3.81 a gallon nationwide on Friday according to the travel group AAA.
Food prices rose 0.8% last month, the largest increase in almost three years. Prices for fruits and vegetables, dairy products, chicken and beef all increased. Coffee costs rose 3.5%.
High unemployment. And rising prices. We call this inflation. If you add the unemployment and inflation rates you get the misery index. And the last time it was trending like this Jimmy Carter was president. His stagflation worked magic. It made a bunch of Democrats vote Republican. The Reagan-Democrats that made Carter one unhappy former president.
Farmers do a far better job than Teachers
Have you learned anything reading this? Have you followed any of the links to learn more? To fact check? If you said yes to any of the above you have learned quite a bit with your visit here today. And I’m guessing that a lot of what you learned is probably new. You probably learned little of this in the public school system. Even with your 12 years there. But after some 15 minutes and a few mouse clicks you have. Pretty amazing, isn’t it? And it makes you wonder why your public school didn’t teach you any of this. I mean, we spend a fortune on public education. Employ millions of people to teach our kids. But they keep telling us we don’t spend enough. So we spend more. I guess because the public schools aren’t making our kids smart enough. It’s puzzling. Because we spend less and employ fewer people on farming. And farmers feed more people than our public school system educates (see Conventional Education Will Go the Way of Farming by Doug French posted 4/15/2011 on Ludwig von Mises Institute).
We have a wider array of food available to us than ever before. Created by fewer people. The division of labor continues to work wonders. Thank goodness we’re not all stuck on the farm. According to the occupational employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 419,200 were employed in the farming, fishing, and forestry occupations in May of 2009.
The same May 2009 report listed 8,488,740 people employed in education, training, and library occupations. So more than 20 times more people are needed to educate a small portion of the population than to grow food for everyone. But what about serving the food? Yes, food-preparation and food-serving occupations totaled 11,218,260 employees, serving the entire population of over 308 million.
Meanwhile, it takes more than 8 million to educate the 81.5 million that are enrolled in school. History and technology would say this surely can’t last. A proud father recently told me of quizzing his kids about scurvy. And while his young daughter gamely took a wild guess, his crafty teenage son ducked into the next room to google it, quickly emerging to give the correct answer that the disease that killed so many centuries ago is caused by a deficiency of vitamin C.
Public education, then, is a case study of how not to be productive. But is there anything more sacrosanct than public education? Public school teachers? When Wisconsin governor Scott Walker tried to balance the state’s books by restricting public sector workers’ collective bargaining rights, all hell broke out. Even the president sent some of his people to the state to run interference to stop that legislation. Why? Because he was worried about the quality of that education?
This is the information age, yet the ability to communicate is not being taught, or not sinking in. [A] college English instructor…wrote on Boston.com that few of her students had received writing instruction in high school, and that correcting student papers was so time consuming that the task was virtually overwhelming. She quotes Vartan Gregorian, the former president of Brown University, who rightly understands that “the ability to read, comprehend, and write — in other words, to organize information into knowledge — must be viewed as tantamount to a survival skill.”
That doesn’t sound like a very high level of quality from our public schools. It rather sounds like they’re doing a poor job. Even though we pay more and more each year.
In a piece questioning the need for colleges offering majors in business, David Glenn writes that employers are looking for “22-year-olds who can write coherently, think creatively and analyze quantitative data, and they’re perfectly happy to hire English or biology majors.”
Yes, the facts and figures are a click away. The ability to use, understand, and communicate those facts is what must be taught and currently is not. And it doesn’t take an army of 8 million and a budget of 1 trillion dollars and counting to do it.
So if the schools are doing such a poor job, why do we protect these public sector workers with such passion? What other employees that do such a poor job are treated so well?
Well, to understand this you have to look at the money. For money never lies. You see, educating our children is not their primary object. It’s funneling taxpayer money to the Democratic Party via their union dues. And producing future Democrat voters. Yes, they may not come out of school with useable job skills. But a good percentage of them will become moderate/independent voters. People that a candidate Barack Obama can appeal to. Especially when there is an incumbent in office that they’ve been taught to hate.
Hate, Fear and Charm
Liberals aren’t happy with Obama. Because he’s toned down his liberalness. Because he had to. Liberals are only 20% of the population. The voters he fooled last time (moderates and independents) probably won’t get fooled again. And you just aren’t going to win an election with 20% of the vote. So he has to move towards the center for the 2012 election. And hope that the public school system keeps dumbing down our graduates so that they’re still naïve and ignorant enough when they vote for the first time. Because after four years a lot of people are going to forget to hate George W. Bush. Or even know who he is (the new voters in 2012 would have only been 14-17 during the last ‘hate’ cycle in 2008. And you know what 14-17 year olds are thinking about. That’s right. Not politics). And with the misery index trending Jimmy Carter, Obama is going to need all the ignorance and naiveté he can get.
With a record of abject failure, Obama is going to have to bank his reelection chances completely on feelings. Not fact. Hate, fear and charm. No substance. The platform will be simple. To hate and fear the Republicans. And tell charming lies to get people to believe them despite the evidence of the past 4 years.
Tags: Democrat Party, George W. Bush, independents, independents abandoning Obama, inflation, Jimmy Carter, liberal, liberal base, misery index, moderate, Obama, Obama record, public education, public school system, public school teachers, Reagan, Reagan Democrats, recession, Republican, stagflation, teachers, unemployment, union dues
It’s not that the American People Disagree with Obama. They’re just not Smart enough to know what’s Best for Them.
Well, problem solved. Sort of. For a year or so. Then they’ll have to do it all over again.
Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts. And it will only cost another year of unemployment benefits. That’s good because we have all grown weary of this recession (see Obama defends tax deal, says he’s kept promises by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).
With fellow Democrats balking, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that a compromise with Republicans on tax cuts was necessary to help the economy and protect recession-weary Americans. He passionately defended his record against Democrats who complain he’s breaking campaign promises.
What’s this? Some of that bipartisanship he was talking about when Obama ran as a moderate during the 2008 presidential campaign? Can you feel the love? You better pinch me because I must be dreaming.
Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.
“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”
He said the American people agree with his position, but “I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.” Reflecting the newly increased Republican clout in Congress, he said: “I haven’t persuaded (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded (House GOP leader) John Boehner.”
Now there’s the Obama we all know and…., well, know. Who else could suffer such a categorical rejection of his polices and still think the American people agree with him? Talk about illusions of grandeur.
It reminds me of that line in the movie Tootsie where some aging soap opera star was lamenting about being an old has-been. Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) soothed his feelings by saying he wasn’t an old has-been. He couldn’t be. Because you had to be famous first to be a has-been.
Or that scene in that classic movie This is Spinal Tap, the fake documentary about a fake, aging rock band. The interviewer noted they were playing smaller venues instead of arenas like in their heyday and asked if that was a reflection on their popularity. They said ‘no’. Their audiences weren’t getting smaller. They were just becoming more selective.
And you can forget about pinching me.
Americans Lose Faith in the Unmanly Obama
Unhappy with this compromise, the Left is questioning Obama’s manliness (see Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled by Sam Youngman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).
“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
The public is with Obama? Talk about a struggle with reality. Or a very, very short memory. If the midterm elections weren’t a rejection of Obama’s liberal agenda I don’t know what rejection is. So, no, the public is not with Obama on this. Only the far Left is with Obama. That 20% of the population that the other 80% can’t stand.
“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.
Do you think? Things have gotten worse under Obama. Even after he spent billions of dollars to make things better. So, yeah, most Americans have lost faith in Obama. If they even had any in him in the first place.
Compromise is a Four-Letter Word on the Left
Bipartisanship is all well and good. As long as you can make the other guy be bipartisan, that is. The Democrats aren’t happy. Especially the leadership, who usually march in lockstep with Obama (see Obama defends tax deal while Reid seeks changes by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).
“It’s something that’s not done yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re going to have to do some more work,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.
Reid isn’t happy. Neither is Pelosi.
Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally one of Obama’s staunchest allies, made plain her unhappiness, issuing a statement that contained no commitment to help pass the plan. “We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”
Yes, Reid and Pelosi are all for compromise. As long it’s not them doing the compromising. Typical liberals. Never happy. Even with the most liberal president ever to inhabit the White House. He just isn’t liberal enough for them.
The Really Sad thing is that Pelosi got Reelected with 80% of the Vote
Furious, Pelosi vented on Twitter (see Pelosi attacks Obama-GOP tax plan as House Democrats signal fight by Russell Berman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).
In a post on Twitter, Pelosi said the GOP provisions in the tax proposal would add to the deficit and help the rich without creating jobs. The GOP provisions “help only wealthiest 3%, don’t create jobs & add tens of billions to deficit,” the Pelosi tweet said.
Then issued a statement.
“We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead,” Pelosi said. “Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”
Nevadans barely reelected Reid. Pelosi, on the other hand, got something like 80% of the vote. Scary. So that means about 80% of the people in her district agree with the political philosophy of about 20% of the country. That screwball far Left. The same people that supported Joseph Stalin. And Fidel Castro. Is it any wonder that Pelosi doesn’t have the foggiest idea about creating jobs?
Pelosi and the Democrats have been in power since 2006, 2 years before Obama’s election. That’s 4 years of legislative control. And things have declined during those 4 years. So why in the world would anyone believe that she and her Democrats know anything about jobs and economic growth? I’m sure she believes they do. They just need more time. Because that fifth year is always the charm. Stalin, Mao, Castro – they all had 5 year plans. And all the magic happens in that fifth year. Apparently.
Elections Have Consequences
The 2010 midterm elections were a mandate to shrink the power and scope of government. Yet you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Even some Republicans seem a little too eager to reach across the aisle.
The Republicans need to acknowledge that Obama was right. Elections have consequences. And they won this time. Not the Democrats. And they need to legislate like they got a pair.
Many feel the extension of the Bush tax cuts came at a high price. No doubt they’re wondering what they will pay to repeal Obamacare.
Tags: 2008 presidential campaign, 2010 midterm elections, bipartisanship, Bush tax cuts, campaign promises, compromise, creating jobs, Democrats, economic growth, elections have consequences, extend the Bush tax cuts, far Left, Harry Reid, illusions of grandeur, Liberal Agenda, midterm elections, moderate, most liberal president, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Obama's liberal agenda, Obama-GOP tax plan, Pelosi, recession, Reid, Republicans, tax cuts, the far Left, the Left, unemployment benefits
SLAVERY WAS ALWAYS a complicated issue. Many of the Founding Fathers saw the contradiction with the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence. And there were the economic costs. George Washington wanted to transition to paid laborers as the generations of slaves he inherited were consuming an ever growing share of his harvest. (You only pay paid-laborers; you didn’t have to house and feed them and their families.) He had whole families that included babies and the elderly long past their working prime. People would buy slaves in their working prime but wouldn’t take their parents and grandparents, too. He didn’t want to break up the families. And he couldn’t free them. Someone had to take care of those who could no longer work. So he would. Even after death. He freed his slaves in his will and directed his heirs to train and help them so they could integrate into the workforce. (Not every slave-owner, though, was as caring as Washington).
So Washington, John Adams and some of the other Founding Fathers saw slavery as an institution that would eventually wither and die. They saw it as immoral. As well as an inefficient economic system. It would just have to die out one day. So they tabled the discussion to get the southern states to join the union. But they did put an end date on the slave trade. Twenty years should be enough time they thought. And in those 20 years, the South would figure out what to do with the slaves they had. Because no one in the north could figure that one out. Who would compensate the slave owners for their emancipated ‘property’? And there were no biracial societies at that time. No one could imagine that a formerly enslaved majority will become peaceful neighbors with their former minority masters. Especially in the South.
But the cotton gin changed all of that. The one thing that slave labor was good for was big single-crop plantations. And there was none better than King Cotton. Separating the seed from the cotton was the one bottleneck in the cotton industry. Ely Whitney changed that in 1791. Cotton production exploded. As did slavery. The southern economy changed. As did the political debate. The southern economy was a cotton economy. And cotton needed slaves. The South, therefore, needed slavery.
CARVED OUT OF the new Louisiana Territory were territories that would organize into states and request admittance into the union. But would they be free or slave? The first test was resolved with the Missouri Compromise (1820). Henry Clay (the Great Compromiser) kept the peace. Saved the union. For awhile. The compromise forbade slavery north of Missouri’s southern border (approximately the 36th parallel) in the Louisiana Territory (except in Missouri, of course). Martin Van Buren saw this as a temporary fix at best. Any further discussion on the slavery issue could lead to secession. Or war. So he created the modern Democratic Party with but one goal. To get power and to keep power. With power he could control what they debated. And, once he had power, they wouldn’t debate slavery again.
During the 1844 presidential campaign, the annexation of the Republic of Texas was an issue. The secretary of state, Daniel Webster, opposed it. It would expand slavery and likely give the Senate two new democratic senators. Which was what John C. Calhoun wanted. He succeeded Webster as secretary of state. The new northern Whigs were antislavery. The southern Whigs were pro-cotton. The Whig presidential candidate in 1844 was Henry Clay (the Great Compromiser). He wasn’t for it or against it. Neither was Martin Van Buren, the Democrat frontrunner. They wished to compromise and avoid this hot issue all together.
Well, Clay wasn’t ‘anti’ enough for the antislavery Whigs. So they left and formed the Liberty Party and nominated James. G. Birney as their candidate. Meanwhile, the Democrats weren’t all that happy with Van Buren. Enter James Knox Polk. He didn’t vacillate. He pledged to annex Texas. And the Oregon territory. The Democrats nominated him and said goodbye to Van Buren.
The Whig and Liberty parties shared the northern antislavery votes, no doubt costing Clay the election. A fait accompli, President Tyler signed off on the annexation of Texas before Polk took the oath of office.
BUT ALL WAS not well. Those sectional differences continued to simmer just below the boiling point. The Fugitive Slave Law now made the ‘southern’ problem a northern one, too. Federal law now required that they help return this southern ‘property’. It got ugly. And costly. Harriet Ward Beecher’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin only inflamed the abolitionist fires in the North. And then Stephen Douglas saw a proposed transcontinental railroad that could take him to the Whitehouse.
The railroad would go through the unorganized Nebraskan territory (the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase). As Washington discussed organizing this territory, the South noted that all of this territory was above 36th parallel. Thus, any state organized would be, by the terms of the Missouri Compromise, free. With no state below the 36th parallel added, the balance of power would tip to the North. The South objected. Douglas assuaged them. With the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Which replaced the Missouri Compromise (the 36th parallel) with popular sovereignty. And Kansas bled.
The idea of popular sovereignty said that the people of the new organized state would determine if they were free or slave. So the free and slave people raced to populate the territory. It was a mini civil war. A precursor of what was to come. It split up the Whig and Democratic parties. Southern Whigs and Northern Democrats quit their parties. The Whig Party would wither and die. The new Republican Party would rise from the Whig’s ashes. They would address the cause, not the symptoms. And at the heart of all the sectional divides was the issue of slavery itself. It had to be addressed. As Abraham Lincoln would say in 1858, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
ZACHARY TAYLOR CHOSE Whig Millard Fillmore as his vice president to appeal to northern Whigs. When Taylor died some 2 years into his first term, Fillmore became president. His support of the Compromise of 1850 (admit California as a free state, settle Texas border, grant territorial status to New Mexico, end the slave trade in the District of Columbia and beef up the Fugitive Slave Law) alienated him from the Whig base.
In the 1856 presidential contest, the Republicans nominated John C. Frémont. The Democrats nominated James Buchanan. And Millard Fillmore (compromiser and one time Whig) ran on the American Party ticket. There was talk of secession should Frémont win. It was a 3-way race. Buchanan battled with the ‘compromiser’ in the South. And with the ‘abolitionist’ in the North. The race was close. Buchanan won with only 45% of the vote. But Frémont lost by only 2 states. He had won all but 5 of the free states. Had Fillmore not run, it is unlikely that these free states would have voted for the slavery candidate. So Fillmore no doubt denied Frémont the election.
AMERICA’S ORIGINAL TRUST buster, Teddy Roosevelt (TR), said he wouldn’t run for reelection. And he didn’t. He picked Howard Taft as his ‘successor’. TR was a progressive frontier man. He had that smile. This made him a popular and formidable candidate. Taft just wasn’t as much of a TR as TR was. So some asked TR to run again. Against his own, hand-picked ‘successor’. Which he did.
Taft won the Republican Nomination, though. Undeterred (and having a really big ego), TR formed a third party, the Progressive Party. He moved to the left of Taft. So far left that it made Woodward Wilson, the Democrat candidate, look moderate.
The 1912 presidential election turned into a 3-man race. Between 3 progressives. Taft ‘busted’ more trusts than did TR. But he just wasn’t TR. Woodward Wilson was probably the most progressive and idealist of the three. But in the mix, he looked like the sensible candidate. Roosevelt beat Taft. But Wilson beat Roosevelt. Wilson won with only 45% of the vote. And gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve System. Big Government had come.
IN THE 1992 presidential campaign, George Herbert Walker Bush (read my lips, no new taxes) ran in a 3-way race between Democrat Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Perot bashed both parties for their high deficits. He was a populist candidate against the status quo. He went on TV with charts and graphs. He called Reaganomics ‘voodoo’ economics. While Bush fought these attacks on his 12 years in the executive office (8 as vice president and on 4 as president), Clinton got by with relative ease on his one big weakness. Character.
Exit polling showed that Perot took voters from both candidates. More people voted that year. But the increase was roughly equal to the Perot vote (who took 19%). If anyone energized the election that year, it wasn’t Clinton. He won with only 43% of the vote. The majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton. Had the focus not been on Reaganomics and the deficit (where Perot took it), Clinton’s character flaws would have been a bigger issue. And if it came down to character, Bush probably would have won. Despite his broken ‘read my lips’ pledge.
HISTORY HAS SHOWN that third party candidates don’t typically win elections. In fact, when a party splinters into two, it usually benefits the common opposition. That thing that is so important to bring a third party into existence is often its own demise. It splits a larger voting bloc into two smaller voting blocs. Guaranteeing the opposition’s victory.
Politics can be idealistic. But not at the expense of pragmatism. When voting for a candidate that cannot in all probability win, it is a wasted vote. If you’re making a ‘statement’ with your vote by voting for a third party candidate, that statement is but one thing. You want to lose.
Tags: abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln, American Party, antislavery, Big Government, Bill Clinton, California, character, Compromise of 1850, cotton, cotton gin, Daniel Webster, Declaration of Independence, deficits, Democratic Party, District of Columbia, Ely Whitney, Federal Reserve System, Founding Fathers, Fugitive Slave Law, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Washington, Harriet Ward Beecher, Henry Clay, Howard Taft, income tax, James Buchanan, James Knox Polk, James. G. Birney, John Adams, John C. Calhoun, John C. Frémont, Kansas, Kansas-Nebraska Act, King Cotton, Liberty Party, Louisiana Purchase, Louisiana Territory, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Missouri Compromise, moderate, Nebraskan territory, New Mexico, North, Oregon, plantations, popular sovereignty, Progressive Party, Read my lips, Reaganomics, Republic of Texas, Republican Party, Ross Perot, sectional differences, slave trade, slave-owner, slavery, slaves, South, Stephen Douglas, Teddy Roosevelt, Texas, third party, TR, transcontinental railroad, Uncle Tom's Cabin, union, voodoo economics, Whigs, Whitehouse, Woodward Wilson, Zachary Taylor