SEIU and the ‘Cheapest Emotional Denominator’
To an Alinskyite, “the end justifies almost any means” and an additional 12 million votes could usher in permanent Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. What happens thereafter to the nation’s social fabric and our treasury is merely collateral damage.
April 22, 2010 - 12:04 am
Take issues like race out of the narrative — take away, that is, the whole smelly machinery of the politics of grievance — and what does the left have to work with? — Roger Kimball
Assuming that President Andy Stern’s impending retirement from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will be a blessing for America is misguided. While conservatives are rightly ecstatic over the departure of a man who degraded his union into little more than an unofficial franchise of Democrat Party USA, his replacement appears cut from the same “Made in the GDR” cloth. Apparently, Stern’s accomplishments during his 14 year tenure swell him with pride. A SEIU source told the New York Times that his decision to leave was based on the passage of the statist health care bill which was one of his “longtime goals.” Moreover, Barack Obama, his power-lusting co-dependent, may have big plans for him post-retirement.
In terms of sheer corruption though, it’ll be hard to improve on Stern’s performance. He spent $85 million during the 2008 election cycle which caused SEIU’s net assets to fall by nearly half.
Financial data though is an irrelevancy to Big Labor, so the archenemy and tormentor of Glenn Beck declared victory. Stern boasted that “SEIU is on the field, it’s in the White House, it’s in the administration.”
It certainly is. Thanks to Stern, in 2010, whatever benefits radicals benefits SEIU. This rule applies to the Democratic Party’s agenda as a whole, be it the socialization of health care, fighting global greed (no explanation given on what precisely that is), “climate change,” and the ever-popular goal of taxing banks out of existence.
Of course, one cannot forget the Democrats’ next outrage: immigration “reform.” They learned from the past and eschew calling it “amnesty.” This time around it’s “reform,” but, as with all other wedge issues (areas in which the general public’s opinion significantly clashes with that of the leftist elite), word games must be played.
Contrast this with the conservative approach, wherein we verbally depict problems with language that matches how they actually are. We classify those who break into our country and evade detection as being “illegal immigrants.” Combating their presence is a necessity because how else can we win a war on terror?
For our adversaries, only euphemism matters. The “so called” “war on terror” is an “overseas contingency operation.” Moreover, “no person is illegal.” Please call them what they are not: “undocumented citizens.” Let’s take them “out of the shadows.”
How does “reform” differ from “amnesty”? That is a question they will not answer. What they do clarify is that immigration, like so many other issues, is moral in nature. We are obligated to create a “path to citizenship.”
Fortunately, common sense is not dead. Most people will recognize the left’s verbose gymnastics for the over-processed mumbo-jumbo that it is.
Thus, the Obama administration did not cite ideology when terminating the construction of a “virtual fence” on the border. Instead, it was due to “cost overruns and missed deadlines” even though those two factors are inherent to every single federocracy venture.
The wink and Lakoff approach to immigration is absurd. The U.S. already accepts 700,000 to 900,000 new immigrants per year. Why then, isn’t the status quo sufficient? If not three-quarters of a million plus, then what figure do they prefer?
Democratic champions of the “open the floodgates” school to immigration never acknowledge that sensible objections exist. When confronted with logic, they create straw-man positions to mischaracterize the views of their opponents.
Most of what they concoct amounts to nothing more than an appeal to the CED. For those unfamiliar with this notable psychological phenomenon (which I just made up), CED stands for Cheapest Emotional Denominator.
The term embodies well the tactics Democrats adopt when faced with arguments from the right. Of course, if the public ever digested conservative positions without prejudice they would find that they agreed with most of them.
A Gallup poll from last summer confirms this. It identified conservatives as the “single-largest ideological group” in America. Thus, if Democrats didn’t reflexively invoke base-level fears and engage in perpetual character assassination of Republicans, they’d be as passé as cigarette holders and bets on the U.S. dollar.