The Left’s Ongoing War on Logic
Stigmatizing opposition and appealing to emotion is all the left ever had, as they certainly can't point to facts.
August 25, 2010 - 12:01 am
Somewhere between the presidency of Herbert Hoover and the much maligned career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, being Republican became “uncool.”
That never bothered me though. I have long known that adulthood and hipness are mutually exclusive conditions. Yet for the last 40 years Democrats have depicted Republicans in the worst possible light, and, in the process, morphed serious minded human beings into personality caricatures. Rather than describe conservatives as fellow citizens, leftists cast us as variations upon the Church Lady, random geeks, fatcat capitalists like the one pictured on the Monopoly game, or as General Ripper in the film Dr. Strangelove.
Their attempts at discrediting the right are both heinous and foul. Unfortunately, their efforts have partially succeeded in tarnishing the Republican “brand.” This is particularly evident in the perceptions of minority members and the young who see nothing grand in G-O-P.
The left’s blitzkrieg against the right is psychological and devoid of logical refutation. In the mind of activists, responding to the contentions and objections we raise is unnecessary.
Substantive debate with conservatives would not serve their needs. Close inspection of the inefficiency of the Washington, D.C., apparatus, its O’Donnell-esque size, and the fact that its unfunded liabilities will break us in the future would endanger their continued political viability. If pseudo-liberals did not ignore these issues, they would never get elected.
Instead of discussing, Democrats slander, ridicule, and delegitimize. Theirs is politics by conspiracy. Fallacies and rampant mischaracterizations are ubiquitous among their fabricated talking points.
For example, to get around the obvious fact that both the Bush and Obama administrations have floridly failed in their duty to secure our nation’s southern border, leftists painted the Arizona legislature as being a group of racist Neanderthals.
This tactic was yet another attempt by pseudo-liberals to demonize their foes. It did nothing to explain why the federal government refuses to fulfill its obligation to maintain the integrity of our frontiers. Democrats hope that this truth escapes unseen by the populace.
Before the drones ensconced within the left-wing mainstream media were able to correctly parrot the “racist” angle as an article of faith, several leaps in logic had to be made first.
Pseudo-liberals had to pretend that the Arizona bill impacted immigrants on aggregate, as opposed to illegal aliens in isolation. After doing so, they then deliberately deceived the public by blurring the distinction between origin and race.
“Mexican” is a term describing nationality. It is not an indicator of race. One is reminded of this in Chicago. Here one periodically encounters Mexican-Americans who physically appear just as Caucasian as Mayor Daley himself.
Yet to our leftist elites — whose temperament and addiction to status makes them loathe to mix with the general public — anyone born south of the Rio Grande automatically looks like the Incas of yore.
That appeals to the cheapest emotional denominator work evidences the extent to which ours is a sound-bite culture. Sustained analysis would illuminate for normal folk that the proper word for preventing illegal aliens from rampaging over our border is “rational.”
Maintaining non-permeable frontiers is as innocuous as watching Winnie the Pooh. Keeping citizens from discerning the normality inherent to such ventures is emblematic of the Democratic approach to governance.
A fully informed public is one that eschews membership in coalitions dominated by professional race-baiters and co-competing parasites. Democratic mandarins intuit that engagement over policy mechanics is a precursor to their faction’s Waterloo. They are the party of government, so they must embrace emotion over reason. Their eternal solution for problems (or banalities they mislabel as problems) are bureaucratic programs, and more of them.
Sooner or later, calm discussion would reveal to impartial observers that pseudo-liberals always write out the same prescription for whatever ails — an increase in the size of government.
Socialism is the Democratic Party’s perpetual, Waters-made deus ex machina. A cavalry to call upon regardless of situation. It applies equally well for concerns over global warming, underperforming schools, unemployment, and even the imperfections in our health care system.
The one theme intrinsic to leftist politics is that citizens cannot be trusted to improve their lives on their own. Were it to be otherwise, then what use would we have for a gaggle of sanctimonious demagogues who lust for power and control?
We must follow their lead as, in the words of our nation’s great divider: “Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”
Another neo-socialist, Representative Barney Frank, placed love for statism in the proper euphemistic context. He summarized the Byzantine and corrupt practices of the Leviathan with the mundane utterance: “Government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”
If you believe that, then you’ll buy that printing money results in economic stimulus. Rep. Frank is wrong, however. Government is the name for the things our elites do to us.
We — the majority of Americans — do not wish to be slaves and live on handouts. It strikes Democrats as odd, but we prefer to be free. We understand that a monolithic state precludes personal autonomy and we don’t like it.
A citizen bias in favor of liberty would be incontrovertible, if the press desisted in smearing as racist those who proclaim it. Were Americans openly encouraged to discuss our desires, it would soon emerge that being left alone and living in the manner we choose are chief amongst them.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is aware of this eventuality, and is determined to avoid public examination of the Democrats’ positions. Undoubtedly that is why he made an appeal to conformity when he informed a group of mostly Hispanic voters: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”
No, you don’t, should you assume that every Hispanic American is a wind-them-up-and-watch-them-spout-dogma drone. Luckily, Sen. Reid is as astray as Sen. Frank. Hispanics are individuals. They are not clones of Paul Begala.
In advertising, sex sells, but when evaluating government policies, liberty is as enticing as Vida Guerra. Were it to be otherwise this country would not exist. The question that Reid should have posed: what does the Democratic Party have to offer those Hispanics who wish to work and become autonomous persons? Nothing is the answer.
Regardless, independent high functioning adults are not the Democrats’ core constituency. Their party exclusively benefits those who either cannot work or do not wish to.
You know, Americans of Hispanic descent, you know what the strongest issue there is? That is economic empowerment, upward mobility. There’s only one economic system in the world that that’s possible in, time and again, and that’s the American free enterprise system. And the reason why Americans of Hispanic descent should be Republicans is because the Democratic leadership is trying to dismantle the American free enterprise system. The point is he’s wrong.
Rubio’s retort was astute. He knows well both the electorate and the nature of the opposition.
The Democratic Party stands for class warfare, racial hatred, national decline, and acquiring power by any means necessary. As long as they are the bosses, what they do to America is immaterial.
For the last 17 months they have been in charge of Congress and the executive branch. Rather than direct, they have stigmatized Republicans and demoralized the citizenry at every turn. Hopefully, voters will observe the poison that has been their reign and never again trust them to lead our country.