Fighting the real enemy
Posted by aogWednesday, 14 November 2012 at 17:17
TrackBack Ping URL
I agree with Nick Nolte and Andrew Marcu that the real enemy isn’t the Democratic Party, but Old Media. If the actions, statements, and policies of the Democratic Party were treated the same way as that of conservatives, the GOP, and the Tea Parties the Democratic Party would be reduced to a regional stump. It’s hardly an accident that President Obama pretended to be a centrist / conservative during his first campaign despite his record, and avoided as much as possible talking about his policies at all in the second. He knew Old Media would cover for him and go after the GOP. Absent that kind of agit-prop cover, he would have lost badly. That’s what any one who still loves this nation and its founding principles should do, work to bring down the ideologues who pretend to be journalists.
P.S. I think it interesting that Obama’s own campaign is claiming they won by going after the people who were the least informed. The trend of the Democratic Party, having to stretch and strain ever more deeply in that way is indicative of how poorly they fair against information.
P.P.S. I have some accumulated examples I need to add —
P3.S Let’s not forget Pat Caddell’s statement that “media bias has reached a new level of corruption”. (Check the link, there are other examples in there).
And let me add this from Instapundit which has some examples of how the Obama Administration treats journalists with brutal disdain yet suffers no consequences. Maybe that should be the GOP model, it seems to work.
Friday, 16 November 2012 at 10:11|
OK, I take your point about journalists. I also think that, ever since Watergate, journalists have been taught to look for the scandal. They all wants to be Woodwards and Bernsteins.
AOG, there are constituencies the GOP isn’t likely to shift in the next four years no matter what it says. Large urban cores, New England, the Left coast, academia, Hollywood, most blacks, the New York Times, CBS, unions, Harry Eager… The media that sees them as their constituents will continue to paint the GOP in bogeymen terms. That doesn’t mean that the constituencies that can be shifted—women and suburbanites to name two, maybe a minority of Hispanics and blacks as well, are so in thrall to that media it all amounts to some kind of cheating or fraud. Surely you won’t argue that they were any different with Reagan, Bush, Nixon, etc.—it fact, they might have been worse.
Of course there is much in what you say, but as Jesus said, “The poor, the Dems and the MSM ye shall always have among you”. The election was close in spite of them. Shouldn’t the focus be on the grinding work of figuring out why the GOP managed to alienate its potential support, espeically the support that didn’t even vote? As I said above, it was a close election against a sitting president with tremendous personal appeal.
Let me give an example. Romney’s 47% quip took my breath away and immediately made me think of how that would sound to a low-income single mother of whatever race who is perpetually exhausted because she works long hours at a low-paying job while doing what she can to give her kids an education and chance in life. It’s tough, but she rightfully takes pride in her family and still has hope in the American dream. She may receive a lot of support and services, but what other options are there and what else has she ever known? Romney effectively called her a leech and intimated she would get less in his America. Now, she probably would have voted Dem anyway, but what of potential Romney supporters who were offended by what he was intimating. Just because they were part of the 53% doesn’t mean they wanted to cut her loose. However he meant it, he managed to sound like his answer to “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a resounding no. You don’t need to be even interested in politics to squirm at that.
Sarah Palin was treated execrably, but it can’t be said she didn’t make some contributions to the show that put her pretty far from the world of the average suburban woman. In fact, given that she overplayed the gun-totin’, moose huntin’, tough talkin’ schtick, she made me think of another point the GOP might consider thinking through:
Seen through non-American eyes, American politics is very rhetorical with lots of appeals to ideological first principles like self-reliance, equality, hard work, etc, Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the certain catastrophe to come if the other guy wins. That’s fine, but a lot of GOP rhetoric in recent years strikes me as overly-nostaligc for revolutionary or even 19th century days of strong churches, relatively self-contained economies, hardy rural yeomen and craftsman, and hyper-democratic townhall democracy. Very inspiring, but there were no suburbs in 1776 and I’m not sure that speaks to the reality of suburban life in 2012. But neither does perpetual deficits and redistributive politics to decrepit urban cores, so I’m guessing there are lots of hearts and minds to be won by the party that figures out what their priorities are. Fiscal sanity based on low taxation is one and so is public safety, but so are racial equality and civic harmony. Secure borders and a legal basis for immigration is another, but an aversion to rounding people up and deporting them is too. Finally, I’ve been defending social conservatism since Brothers Judd days, but enough is enough! Who are these people??
|Annoying Old Guy
Friday, 16 November 2012 at 12:01|
Surely you won’t argue that they were any different with Reagan, Bush, Nixon, etc.—it fact, they might have been worse.
I think they are. I think that the ideology has hardened and journalists are far more likely to overlook any scandals on the Democratic Party side, and that they are even more in to a cult of personality with Obama than with Clinton. I think they’re much more willing to flat out lie when useful. But don’t just take my word for it, check the Pat Caddell linka above - he was there, in the thick of things during the Reagan era and that’s what he says as well.
Shouldn’t the focus be on the grinding work of figuring out why the GOP managed to alienate its potential support, espeically the support that didn’t even vote?
Yes. And my part in that is working on a big cause of the alienation, journalistic malpractice and excessive GOP accomodation to that. Others are working on voter fraud, others on education, and still others on outreach. We all do our little part.
The biggest disappointment for me was that in several states, if everyone who voted for a GOP House candidate had also voted for Romney, he would have won that state. Some self examination on that point would be a good thing.
Your gaffe examples read (to me) as a claim that GOP candidate has to be perfect, 24/7, even in the most private circumstances, or he’s doomed. If that’s really true then I should give up, as it’s an impossible standard. My question to you is why do you think that is the effective standard for the GOP? Do you see any way a non-perfect candidate could not alienate the muddle? A key element of that would be to break through Old Media so the muddle becomes aware of just how much more insulting the other side is.
I think you’re a bit too dismissive of Palin, as I think the “overdoing it” was more a product of Old Media than Palin. I think she had the potential to be another Reagan, possibly even better, but was ruined by a combination of McCain’s mishandling, being plucked up nationally too early (compared to Reagan’s many years working the circuts before 1980), an even more vicious Old Media than Reagan faced, and a lack of support from her party.
For your last paragraph, I think the Tea Parties are basically what you’re looking for. Their increasing strength is one of the fews hopes I see these days. I work with them and have been in real life focusing on state and local efforts, because I don’t see much hope with the national level leadership of any party.
Although I am, as I noted, a bit heartened by the increasing strenuousness of what is required to get Democratic Party candidates elected (both by journalists, as discussed above, and the required level of “get out the vote” efforts).
P.S. “hardy rural yeomen and craftsman” — I laughed at that because that’s what Eagar claims is the goal of the modern Democratic Party’s tax, regulate, and spend policies. I should dig up that link.