Today is
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Google Safe Search


Home > Perspective

Is Reality Finally Sinking In? Nope.


The elite leftists of America, for all of their loony conspiracy theories and childish threats to tear America in two, still have a powerful academic base.  Liberal Acadæmia all but controls higher education in this country.  In fact, were not for that faction, a forceful argument that the Democratic party’s "generation without power" would be longer than a generation, and would have started on January 20, 1981, could be made.  However, there is a flickering morsel of light at the end of the liberal tunnel.  No, I am not talking about Barack Obama.

Actually, the first person to say that the Democratic party needed to be "born again" was James Carville, the cajun with cajones.  He could be dismissed by the bulk of Democrats, since he is married to Mary Matalin, architect of Bush 41’s 1988 landslide and an active worker for W 2004.  They may think his mindset "polluted" by being so close to a conservative.  The fact that Carville, for all intents and purposes, is a voice crying alone in the night, and may not even mean what he said, makes me think that reality has not sunk in.

Ever since Eleanor Clift wrote in the Nov. 5 Newsweek that, in essence, John Kerry lost for failing to use religion as an issue against W,  liberal denial has been apparent.  She excoriated Kerry for not going with gusto after base-energizing issues such as poverty (where she takes up the liberal mantra that the Bible commands enforced social welfare, also recently espoused by Hillary Clinton).  She also noted that Kerry could have pushed for state initiatives for higher minimum wages, in order to turn out the liberal vote.


"These and other rumblings all proceed from a wrong assumption.  The elitist left assumes that this country is evenly divided between conservatives and liberals."


These and other rumblings all proceed from a wrong assumption.  The elitist left assumes that this country is evenly divided between conservatives and liberals.  They reinforce this misconception with myopia; "None of my friends here in Greenwich village appear to be conservative, so it must be the lesser people in the red states who are all right wing nut jobs!"  They exalt raw statistics that show that W had over 60,000,000 million votes, but Kerry had over 57,000,000 of his own.  They take this putatively spread as statistical evidence that the liberal message resonates with the people. 


"If 41,610,000 of Kerry’s 57,000,000 are of the type that would ’vote for a single-celled organism before...George Bush,’ how can they be said to support the liberal agenda? ... [T]he number of people energized by the left’s message, to the extent it can actually be deciphered, is closer to 15,390,000 or about 13.1% of the 2004 electorate."


That assumption, however, ignores the surveys that show that 73% of the democratic vote was not an endorsement of any policy as much as it was a vote against Bush.  If 41,610,000 of Kerry’s 57,000,000 are of the type that would "vote for a single-celled organism before...George Bush," how can they be said to support the liberal agenda? They cannot, at least not reliably, be counted as true liberals.  That means that the number of people energized by the left’s message, to the extent it can actually be deciphered, is closer to 15,390,000 or about 13.1% of the 2004 electorate.  Rush Limbaugh said that he thought the Anti-Bush press gave Kerry 15 points this cycle.  Rush may be underestimating.


"I mourn the total absence of liberals who can define their issues as affirmative statements instead of ’Bush is Evil’ or ’I have a better plan [but I cannot explain it to you because you would run, not walk, to my opponent’s side].’ "


As I have repeatedly said, I mourn the total absence of liberals who can define their issues as affirmative statements instead of "Bush is Evil" or "I have a better plan [but I cannot explain it to you because you would run, not walk, to my opponent’s side]."  If the liberals want to reduce their powerless generation to the extremely optimistic "20 years" that Eleanor Clift predicts, they will have to get their academic friends together, and instead of relying on indoctrination concepts (to which Americans are by their contrarian nature somewhat immune -- thank God), rely on robustly debating and advocating ideas!  We conservatives had our powerless generation, and we carefully honed our message since before Goldwater ’64.  We reduced high-fallutin’ snobbery to concise, clearly-expounded ideas and backed them with facts.  Our conservative platform reached full bloom in Reagan 1980, and has not wilted since then.  The people responded by giving us both houses of Congress and the White House.  My fear is that we conservatives will become complacent in our thinking, assuming that we are entitled to power as the liberals did.  If that happens, watch the rug come out from under us.

So, I want the liberals to actively and forcefully argue with facts (not invective).  I want to see a vigorous debate to keep every conservative thinker in the United States on his or her toes.  That is how the right will keep on earning the privilege (it is not anyone’s "right") to run government.  Sadly, as Howard Dean prepares to slug it out to head the DNC (I think that he will win), I see nothing more than the standard diet of demagoguery and ad hominem.