They are deceitful and hypocritical, they claim a patriotism they never actually put into practice, and they constantly seek the gains of extremists and special interest groups over the rights and needs of regular people, but you can’t say the Democrats are not savvy; the Democrats have figured out their best chance to grab power in Congress these fall elections – lie, lie, and lie.
Most of the lies are obvious, once one thinks about them. Polls have constantly shown that the voters care almost exclusively about National Security and the Economy, but the Democrats have lied to pretend that the Foley mess will be the deciding factor in this election. Individual head-to-head races show many competitive and close contests, but the Democrats harp over and over again about the generic polls – polls which historically have missed the mark more often than a reasonable person should accept in a barometer. To hear the Democrats, there’s no reason for anyone to bother voting, it’s all over and we should just accept Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Never mind the mounting legal and ethical problems for Reid, and Pelosi’s – well – conflicts in rational analysis.
Always quick to take offense, especially when they are caught red-handed like this, one may expect the Democrats to point to the pollsters, even to certain Republicans like Romney, whose own somber prognosis is getting play. First off, you might want to check out track records of those pollsters – the ones who are going out and predicting big gains for the Donks are the same ones who made similar predictions in 2004 and 2002. Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, John Zogby, by and large have given up even the pretense of objectivity in favor of putting on cheerleader outfits for the Democrats. The professional polls, like Gallup, Pew, and Survey USA, show a range of results and are not at all quick to predict results in this election. As for those Republicans who have begun to give up, we’ve seen this before – the sad display of politicians who put a finger to the wind instead of holding fast to what they know to be right. It’s useful enough, though, to use these times of trial to see whose backbone has the metal we need for 2008 and beyond.
But enough about how; the question stands as to why the Democrats would play the campaign this way. Surely they have to know how risky it is to simply abandon the issues as they have, to play on trifles in the hope that significant matters will be ignored. Then again, the Democrats don’t have much on their side when matters of substance are considered. It’s ‘all about the economy’? Well then, with low inflation, constantly low Unemployment, a surging Dow, continued strong GDP growth and deficit reduction to boot, one can hardly blame the Democrats for hoping no one asks about the economic results of Republican leadership. Also, recent events around the world have reminded every intelligent person about how dangerous is this world in which we live, and how vital it is to have responsible persons giving the orders, not panty-waists like Kerry or Gore or Dean. Again, it is no shock that Democrats want to shove National Security behind a curtain, lest Americans be reminded about the Donks’ shortcomings there, as well. For the Democrats, strategy is born of tactics, because no feasible strategy has been acceptable yet to the Democrats. One wonders how such a party would manage to govern, but the fact is they are not at all concerned with this question, so long as they win. And that fact alone is reason enough to make sure they lose.
The tactics I refer to are Apathy and Despair. The Democrats have looked back a few years, and have noticed a salient trend, one they hope to play into victory this year. We need only look at the 1992 campaign to understand how it works.
One year before the 1992 elections, President George H.W. Bush looked unstoppable. The Democrats were putting together a largely symbolic campaign, with little hope for success. Then several things happened to change the tide. First, the economy started to tank, by some analyses cast as much worse than it actually was in order to spin against the President. Remember, in those days there was no effective counter to the MSM, and when Dan Rather lied to the camera, there was no way for ordinary people to catch him out. Next, the Republican Party was caught up in an internal fracas between moderates and conservatives, which resulted in a split as some otherwise-reasonable people decided that H. Ross Perot was somehow a good choice for President; the chaos prevented the GOP from sending a unified message and convinced a large portion of the Right to sit at home rather than vote. And the third factor was Bill Clinton – a man unsuited to the responsibilities of national office, but whose skills in political manipulation were superb, enough to turn opportunities into votes when he needed them. In two elections and one Senate trial, Clinton told enough lies skillfully and carefully to achieve the desired result. Like today’s Democrats, Bill Clinton was unconcerned at the time about meeting his duties, but only about winning the moment.
Recalling the victory of 1992 which gave them the White House and the re-election win in 1996, Democrats matched that against their losses in 2004 and 2002, and noticed a key trend – when Democrats work for high turnout, they do not necessarily win, because the Republicans can match and beat them at that game. If turnout is suppressed, however, the hard core of political activism favors the Left. If enough Republicans can be disgusted and enough Independents made disinterested in an election, the Democrats would win essentially by default. And that is the playbook for this year – the party which pretends to speak for Democracy, can only hope to win by persuading most voters to not vote.
That should make you angry, that a major political party is hoping to win not by earning your vote, but by doing all it can to convince you not to vote. But that, in a nutshell, is the modern Democratic Party – only by opposing Democracy, can the Democrats hope to win.