Starting To Get It

Lee Habeeb, VP of Content for Salem Radio Network

National Review has an article today by Lee Habeeb (h/t Hugh Hewitt).  The article is about story-telling and boils the problems of the Republican Party down to an issue of “messaging.”

This post is titled “Starting to Get It” because Mr. Habeeb points out that Republicans are (gasp!) unpopular.  In our culture, they are cast as “the bad guys.”

I’m sure many who read Mr.Habeeb’s article will simply frame it as another Republican rant.  But the idea that our culture sees Republicans as “the bad guys” is the salient point.

In an earlier post about the elegance of Democratic Party messaging, I brought up this issue in the context of simplicity and repetition.

The Democratic Party pushes The Themes over and over, and reassures its adherents, “You have high ideals, but dislike of Republicans is what makes you popular.”

Story-telling might be good messaging.  Being consistent and repetitive is what engenders power.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Morality Play

Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1948 film adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”

A morality play is an allegorical form of drama where the main conflict is between the virtues and vices personified by the characters.

A classic example is Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, where the main character (Prince Hamlet) must deal with events after his father is murdered by his uncle Claudius.  It is a tale of good and evil, and we watch as Hamlet contemplates the ramifications of his actions.

A similar morality play is unfolding in American politics.  We get to watch our elected leaders contemplate the ramifications of policy decisions, but the political theater is where the real action takes place.  It is here we see politics as a morality play, and the battle is between good and evil.  See if you can figure out who is wearing “the black hats.”

Take the issue of fiscal responsibility.  The problem is real, but the conflict is perceived as being between those who want to protect our citizens and those who have no such feelings.

What about gun control?  Reducing tragedies from gun violence is a problem, but the drama is between people who want to protect our citizens and those who are characterized as being aloof and ideological.

Problems of foreign policy, voting rights, and sexual identity are also part of our national debate, but the drama is always between those who are sensitive to the feelings of individuals and those who are cast as having no such concern.

Our political leaders have a host of problems to confront, but Americans should consider how political issues are simply props for the larger morality play being staged.

We can look to the character of Hamlet himself, who muses “…the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Culture vs. the Constitution

 

Photo of Rep. John Lewis and other Democratic Party leaders by Dave Martin
 

On Sunday March 3, 2013, 73 year old John Lewis escorted Democratic Party leaders in a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.  The Democrats were commemorating “Bloody Sunday,” the March 7, 1965 event where Alabama State Troopers attacked marchers from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

Representative John Lewis (D-Ga) was the Chairman of SNCC from 1963 to 1966 and he led that march in 1965.

The Democratic Party used the day to bring attention to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  This year, the Supreme Court will rule on Section 5 of that act, and the potential ruling is fraught with emotion.

We get an indication of the depth of feeling with the coverage of the “Bloody Sunday” commemoration.  Juxtaposed against the video of today’s marchers are the beatings that took place 45 years ago, along with pictures of fire-bombed buses and tear gas streaming across the streets.

And there is another “juxtaposition” that is being presented to us.  It is the characterization of a scornful Justice Scalia referring to the Voting Rights Act as an unnecessary racial entitlement.

Together, these three situations create an emotional connection with Americans, but skillfully placed, they can form a powerful narrative. What is that narrative?

Republicans want to hurt people with dark skin tone.

That’s not what is being said, and yet that is what is being taught.  We see caring and concerned Democrats juxtaposed against scornful Republicans in the context of racial violence.  Does that impact political decisions?  You be the judge:

--Must voter ID be rejected?  Why yes!  The American people have to defend themselves against Republicans who want to hurt people with dark skin tone.

--Must Colorado have a Black Caucus?  Of course!  Colorado Democrats must ensure protection from Republicans who want to hurt people with dark skin tone.

Later this year, Supreme Court Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg will vote to retain Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  They know that Republicans want to hurt people with dark skin tone, and they see it as their duty to continue the necessary protections.

Obviously we will not see that justification in the legal opinions presented by the Supreme Court, but it is those exact feelings in play. Our culture promotes anti-Republican sentiment without a second thought.

Americans are confident that absurd and false characterizations have no place in our country, right?  After all, we have freedom of speech, and that takes care of the problem.

It’s in places like the Middle East where you see such difficulties.  Over there, it’s not unusual for people of the Jewish faith to be characterized as unclean and having genetic inferiority.  That’s wrong and absurd, but…

Egyptians believe this.

Palestinians believe this.

Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians believe this.

Strangely, over here, millions of Americans believe Republicans want to hurt people with dark skin tone.

That is wrong and that is absurd, but…

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Six Themes

Satire provided by Roger King on Twitter

(If you don’t understand the humor associated with the above graphic, please see the coverage of Senator Menendez’s activities by Stacy McCain and the reporting of Senator Rubio’s actions by Courtney Hazlett.)

With Marco Rubio’s GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, there has been an element of triumphalism in the reaction of the Democratic Party.  Senator Rubio had an awkward moment during his speech when he reached for a drink of water.  The Democratic Party used the occurrence to emphasize that Mr. Rubio is a flawed product.

Just as a political figure with dark skin tone is “not black enough” until he or she is a member of the Democratic Party, the same standard applies to Hispanic political figures.  Unless the individual is a Democrat, he or she is lacking in political legitimacy.

Senator Rubio finds himself at the center of this cultural phenomenon, and Americans are wondering, “Is he ready for prime time?”

Saturday Night Live (SNL) had a parody of Rubio’s “Watergate” moment on Saturday (2/16/2013) and for extra measure, threw in a sketch portraying Jesus Christ as a maniac in “DJesus Uncrossed.” This upped the ante associated with President Obama’s characterization of Republicans as those who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy.”

The “DJesus” segment got the attention of Sean Hannity, who featured it on his television show.  Mr. Hannity cast the blasphemy of the skit as an affront to Christianity.

Unfortunately, he missed the main point: The Themes.

Let me quickly review them for your reference.  There are six of them:

* Republican are bad people (racist, homophobic, and bigoted).
* Republicans are destroying the environment.
* Republicans are harming our children.
* Republicans are stealing from our Seniors.
* Republicans are shredding the Constitution.
* Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.

These are the six anti-Republican messages our culture drives home to Americans day after day.  Surprisingly, Republicans seem unaware of them.  They know there is a “double standard” in American politics, but can’t figure out why it exists.

Take the SNL skit as an example.  The sketch is creative, edgy and irreverent; classic SNL.  And yet Sean Hannity (in perhaps “Rubio Watergate” fashion) goes for the wrong target.  He rises to the defense of Christianity.

Analyze this in the context of America’s anti-gun debate.  Republicans are characterized as killers, or people who actively want to harm our children.  How do Republicans respond?  Rather than point to the scurrilous nature of the characterizations, Republicans defend the Second Amendment!

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Our Constitution has legal scholars to defend it.  Christianity has ardent followers to defend it.  The Republican Party needs to concentrate on the task at hand: Counter the themes being used to define Republicans to the American people.

Instead of working the blasphemy aspect, Sean Hannity should have pointed out how SNL is re-working the “Republicans are bad people” theme, casting Republicans as the bitter clingers portrayed so effectively by our President.  SNL uses religion and entertainment as a vehicle, and presents Republicans not only as bigots, but as outright killers!  This is effective, but only if it is not exposed as an obvious use of “The Themes.”

That didn’t happen.  Sean Hannity makes Republicans seem peevish and demonstrably humorless.

Mission accomplished, Mr. Hannity!  (That’s sarcasm.)

The Democratic Party gets to claim a victory with this incident, and it’s another in a long string of victories based on employment of “The Themes.”

We saw a deft working of “The Themes” with the Romney 2012 presidential campaign.  The Democratic Party reinforced the theme that Republicans are bad people, with the 2012 campaign taking it to new heights. Mitt Romney ended up being Electro-Borked!

Americans learned that Mr. Romney would put the family dog on top of the car, place people with dark skin tone in chains, cause Americans to lose their jobs, and kill women with cancer.

Are there more examples?  Well, yes there are!  For every 21^st century event in national politics, the themes are there…

No Child Left Behind – “Republicans are harming our children.”

The Affordable Care Act – “Republicans are bad people.”

The Fiscal Cliff; Debt Ceiling; Sequestration – “Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.”

The Patriot Act – “Republicans are shredding the Constitution.”

Medicare and Social Security Reform – “Republicans are stealing from our Seniors.”

Climate Change, Keystone, ANWR – “Republicans are destroying the environment.”

Gun Control, Voter ID, Immigration – “Republicans are bad people.”

CPAC (the annual conference of the American Conservative Union) is being held in Washington next month.  If conservatives are truly interested in fighting back against America’s political double standard, they should study “The Themes” and determine an effective counter strategy.  Ignoring this political threat is insanity.

My hope is that Americans “take off the blinders” and see the instruments being employed by the Democratic Party to change American culture.

It might be too much to ask, but high-ranking Republicans need to lead the way.

UPDATE 2/28/2013:
Bob Woodward has the courage to confront the "Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe" theme.  Ron Fournier rises to his defense.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Ignoring the Themes

 

Ben Shapiro being interviewed on Piers Morgan Tonight

Hugh Hewitt highlighted the Piers Morgan interview of Ben Shapiro on Thursday, 1/10/2013.  The discussion was on gun violence, and Mr. Hewitt describes the interview as an “embarrassment” for Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Shapiro, a 29 year-old Republican, makes the case for the 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Mr. Hewitt sees it as effective political debate.  Watch the video here.

Mr. Shapiro may have been good at making his points, but the main obstacle in the debate was not addressed.  That was the use of the Democratic Party theme “Republicans are harming our children.”

This theme is typically used in debate on the implementation of No Child Left Behind and various school subsidy issues.  Republicans are characterized as harming our children by wishing to enforce standards and compliance.  Sadly, the theme becomes especially potent when attached to school violence.  It stokes anti-Republican hatred.

Piers Morgan employs Dhimmitude to put the Republican in his place.  You can feel it dripping from the imputation, “How dare you!”

Mr. Shapiro retains his composure and makes arguments based on fact and principle, but it is not enough.  Mr. Morgan uses characterization and The Themes to validate his feelings and win the hearts of his viewers.

Republicans always contend their approach is a solid strategy, but it reflects a discouraging pattern.  Republicans must stop ignoring The Themes of the Democratic Party and begin to counter them.

In the meantime, that “little book” Piers gestures with is all we’ve got.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Well, EXCUSE Me!

 

This is not a post about Steve Martin (pictured above).  It is about a political strategy for Republicans to follow in the coming years.

Where to begin?

Republicans lost the presidential election of 2012 because the Democratic Party had a stronger message.  That message was simply a continuous reinforcing of the Democratic Party’s main theme: Republicans are Bad People.

That is impactful.  The Democratic Party helped Americans understand that Republicans have sinister intent and it resonated.

What was the Republican response?  Something like, “We are not actually bad people…”

That’s weak, and reminds one of the Christine O’Donnell campaign.  Republicans have to stop this behavior.

How to do it?  Employ “Themes of the Republican Party” in the same fashion as the Democratic Party employs its themes.

Keep in mind that the Democratic Party has six separate themes.  Republicans need only these three:

--The Democratic Party has become a Political-Religious Movement.

--The Democratic Party promotes Authoritarianism.

--The Democratic Party’s prime directive is Power and Authority.

Here are examples of how the themes can be employed:

Last month, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice came under attack for promoting a false narrative in the furtherance of the Benghazi cover up.  While the Republican Party played up the idea that Ms. Rice was being used as a tool by the Democratic Party, the stronger point is that she is promoting Authoritarianism.

When Ms. Rice is eventually required to provide testimony under oath, she should answer questions on who directed her to deliver the anti-Islamic film narrative, which of the Benghazi classified briefings she received, and who directed her to change her narrative to acknowledge the terrorist attack.  In analyzing the timeline and the players involved, we will see a clear instance of Authoritarianism in operation:  A particular narrative is promoted as being unimpeachable, and then “evolves” to conform to political expediency.  The people involved were never wrong and never at fault.  Authoritarianism!

Americans should understand that Authoritarianism does not serve their interests well.

Another example is the recent voting patterns of people in Philadelphia and Chicago.  In Philadelphia, 59 voting divisions had no votes for Mitt Romney.  The same is true for 37 voting precincts in Chicago.  While Republicans suggest that voter fraud might be a factor, the stronger point is that this is evidence of a Political-Religious Movement.

Here in Colorado, Douglas County leans strongly toward the Republican Party.  Even so, in the 2012 election, no Republican received more than 75% of the vote.  When we see Americans voting 100% for a particular candidate, we should be suspicious.  (If you asked 100 people to mark a particular block on a piece of paper, a few of them would mistakenly mark the wrong block, simply because human beings are not perfect.  When you see “perfect” results from an imperfect group of participants, you’ve got to wonder what’s going on.)

What’s going on is that the Democratic Party has taken on the characteristics of a Political-Religious Movement in certain parts of the country, where people never dream of acting in a way counter to the interests of the Party.  This kind of “group-think” mentality tends to erode basic freedoms, and typically doesn’t work out well for those being governed.

A third example is the recent proclamation of racism by Representative James Clyburn (D-SC).  Congressman Clyburn finds Republicans are racists and driven to use “racial code words.”  Interestingly, he finds that no Democrats are racists, and that the role of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Civil War, the segregationist activities of the South, and the sponsorship of the Ku Klux Klan is not of concern.

Republicans should use this event to showcase the power and authority of the Democratic Party.  Congressman Clyburn is using race as a political weapon.  He knows that many Americans will be drawn to the Democratic Party to avoid being characterized as racists.

Do Americans understand that hatred for one another does not serve their interests well?  What did the “Hatfields & McCoys” teach us?

Here’s a final example that comes from The Denver Post this past weekend.  In an article reprinted from the 11/18/2012 edition of the Los Angeles Times, Paul VanDevelder delivers a rather snarky piece titled, “One nation, (maybe-not-so) indivisible.”  It is meant to mock those people involved in gathering signatures for secession petitions in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, and across the country.

With authoritarian panache, Mr. VanDevelder characterizes the people in “red states” as being incapable of appreciating America’s national monuments and parks.  Rather, we idolize the Osmonds and love Larry the Cable Guy.

He ends his article with a reference to the Civil War, saying “A lot of historians have argued that we would have been a whole lot better off going our separate ways in 1861.”

And then he delivers the money quote: “Sure, Abe Lincoln was a Republican then, but today he’d be as blue as the ocean.”

Mr. VanDevelder lets us know that Abe Lincoln was not a racist, and that today Mr. Lincoln would have nothing to do with those racist Republicans.

Mr. VanDevelder publishes these words as fact!  He knows without question that today’s Republicans are racists.

That’s a real problem for Republicans.  America is being transformed by the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party legitimized slavery in the 1860s, legitimized the KKK in the 1950s, legitimized racial segregation in the 1960s, and is now legitimizing its conversion to a Political-Religious Movement in the 21^st century.

This should not be brushed aside.  It matters!

We should NOT spend time asking people like Rep. Clyburn, “Why are you attracted to organizations that consider me a racist?”  Instead, we should be pointing out the cultural transformation that is reshaping America.

And if (when) someone accuses you of being “mean spirited,” simply reply (with thanks to Steve Martin), “Well, EXCUSE me!”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Emotional Response

 

Last night, Candy Crowley moderated a town hall presidential debate.  It had one interesting moment when Ms. Crowley stepped out of her moderator role to correct Mitt Romney’s description of the president’s response to Benghazi.

If you were watching the debate, it was an emotional, gasp-inducing exchange.  The president had expressed outrage at the pretensions of Mr. Romney, and Candy Crowley saw her opportunity.  She rose to the occasion and the audience reacted with spontaneous applause for her courage.

I’ve noted before how Ms. Crowley is able to exhibit her anti-Republican credentials and still comport as a professional journalist.  Here’s the takeaway from this occurrence:

1) Our culture teaches us to view Republicans as bad people.

2) The current Democratic Party theme is that Mitt Romney is an unhinged (lying) flip-flopper.

2) Candy Crowley used her power as moderator to portray Mr. Romney as a liar and to evoke an anti-Republican response.

Republicans point to the facts supporting Mr. Romney’s point of view, but the damage is done.

On national TV, before millions of viewers, we have been treated to a spectacle.  Republicans can try to set the record straight, but our culture will not be swayed from its “truth.”

UPDATE 10/18/2012:

Anti-Republican Culture categorizes its posts with four possible labels.  This incident has the extraordinary distinction of receiving all four classifications.

“Republicans Under Siege” is captured when Mitt Romney finds himself under attack not only from his debate opponent, but also from the moderator and a majority of the audience.  “So Right and Natural” is displayed in the spontaneity of the audience applause over the incident.  “The Themes” is present in the “lying Republican” characterization advanced by this incident (and also expounded by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog.com).  “The Ministry of Truth” is represented by the fundamental spin associated with a mention of the phrase “acts of terror” in conjunction with a Benghazi briefing.

The Candy Crowley incident is in a class by itself!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Validation

 

Photo of Andrew Breitbart by Kathy Willens/Associated Press

This post is made with a sense of bitterness and sorrow…

How do you know when your actions are a success? A clear indicator is when you achieve the desired results.

With that in mind, the leadership of the Democratic Party must be celebrating today. They have worked tirelessly to instill Americans with a sense of hatred for Republicans and it is paying off.

A few months ago, I pointed out the specific efforts of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Here’s a summation of their past characterizations:

And so, Republicans are killers. They cheer executions, favor dirty air and water, and enjoy letting the uninsured die. Republicans are homophobic and are without sympathy for victims of floods, wildfires and hurricanes. Republicans are callous and insensitive, and are bent on keeping students, working Americans and minorities from voting.

More recent efforts by the DSCC describe Republicans as being committed to stopping birth control for young women in America. Here’s what the DSCC is saying:

--So if you’ve had it with Republican attacks on women’s health and our basic freedoms, remember: You have the power to stop them. (Dick Durbin)

--This GOP circus isn’t over yet, but you can bet on this: the nominee will be an extremist and out of touch. He will oppose birth control. He will give tax breaks to multibillionaires. (Patty Murray)

--And we know what these Republicans want. A nation where it’s hard to get preventative care, but easy to lose your health coverage. Where we put the rights of big polluters above the rights of women. (John Kerry)

--These guys are dangerous. They will do anything to win – whether it’s waging war on women or imploding our economy. (James Carville)

We see the repetitive theme that Republicans are bad people. Do the efforts bear fruit?

Apparently so.

The Daily Kos published a column last week by a contributor named “Troubadour” that tells us what to think of Republicans. The post is titled, “Murdering, Lying, Thieving, Rat-F*** Republican Pieces of Sub-Amphibian Sh**…”. It concludes with this paragraph:

Republicans, you vile, repulsive, scum. You're not leading this country. You're not contributing to this country. You're not even part of this country. You are the maggot-ridden rot that arises in this country's damaged flesh; you are the vultures constantly picking at us to see if we're weak enough yet to become your next meal; you create problems where none would otherwise exist, just to further weaken America and quicken your own insatiable appetites; you are garbage, and you are traitors. And you are not welcome in this country anymore.

If you look at the comments, you will see that the Daily Kos readership approves of Troubadour’s remarks by a ratio of more than twenty to one.

And here is further validation:

Andrew Breitbart died last night, and sentiments from the Democratic Party are pouring in. Charlie Spiering of Beltway Confidential in the Washington Examiner provides a compilation of Twitter comments. Note the frequent use of allusions to Adolph Hitler.

What must that feel like in the Democratic Party leadership? When you successfully teach people to hate, do you feel pride? Do you feel powerful?

Millions of Americans are learning to hate. The Democratic Party must feel validated.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Economy, Stupid

One of the Six Themes of the Democratic Party is:

“Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.”

With the current state of the American economy, you might think that would be a hard sell.

Think again.

Dan Henninger in The Wall Street Journal describes how president Obama is able to switch our focus with his yearning for “An Economy Built to Last.”

Michelle Obama lets us know how hard her husband has worked to get America “out of this mess.” She tells how (in spite of Republicans) “we’ve made some remarkable progress.”

Meanwhile, our press explains how distinctly out of touch Republicans are in dealing with economic problems. Republican candidate Newt Gingrich takes direct fire for his claim that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

I would note that at the time Mr. Gingrich made this claim, the most recent food stamp data was for October, 2011. During the eight years of the Bush presidency, 14.7 million people had been put on food stamps. During the 33 months of the Obama presidency (through October, 2011) only an additional 14.2 million had been put on food stamps. (Note that Obama’s 14.2 million is less than Bush’s 14.7 million.)

While the number is growing, and the rate of increase during the Obama presidency is more than twice that of president Bush, the statement was technically false at the time it was made (January 16, 2012) based on the published October data. Mr. Gingrich can hope to be exonerated when the January data finally become available.

You might think all of this is “splitting hairs,” but watch the Reverend Al Sharpton use this circumstance to political advantage.

Really, just watch it. This is politics in America:




The Democratic Party theme is that “Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.” With enough repetition, it becomes fact.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Racism

On January 4, 2012, The Denver Post published a story by Lynn Bartels that celebrates the creation of a Colorado Black Caucus:

Colorado Black Caucus launches with Thursday night event

More than 225 people are expected to attend a reception Thursday night to celebrate the launch of an organization of black elected officials.

The Colorado Black Caucus includes Denver's mayor, city council members, school board members, lawmakers and others from around the state.

The group was founded by state Rep. Angela Williams, D-Denver, who serves as its chair.

"All people should have an equal voice at the table," she said. "Our issues are not separate from mainstream Colorado. To the contrary, they are the same."

The event will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

Guests who have said they will attend include Trey Rogers, legal counsel for former Gov. Bill Ritter, and House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.

The most high-profile member of the caucus is Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, the city's second black mayor although African-Americans comprise only 10 percent of its population.

"This caucus presents a great opportunity for African-American leaders throughout the city and state to come together to bolster collaboration," said Hancock, who took office in July.

"I applaud this new group as well for its commitment to increasing civic engagement from within the African-American community…"

The group’s founder, Colorado State Representative Angela Williams, emphasized that “All people should have an equal voice at the table.” The implication is that members of the Caucus do not have an equal voice. To solve this problem, Representative Williams believes Colorado needs a Democratic Party political group based on race.

Egads!

The Denver Post seems to celebrate the decision, but there is a cynical artificiality to the story. Do the editors actually believe there is nothing divisive in a Democratic Party political group being formed to accentuate the perception that Colorado Republicans are racists? Is the formation of such a group a reason to celebrate?

Here’s some perspective:

Colorado wasn’t even a state when the American Civil War was being fought. The Democratic Party had an active KKK organization in Colorado in the 1920s, but it was focused on anti-Catholic initiatives. Colorado has had no trappings of the 1960’s segregationist movement promoted by George Wallace, Orval Faubus and other Democratic Party leaders. In 2008, Colorado voters endorsed Barack Obama by 54% to 45% over Republican John McCain. Colorado’s largest city has an African-American mayor.

But still it is imperative that the Democratic Party accentuate its theme: Republicans are racists.

If you ask members of the Colorado Black Caucus if they believe Colorado Republicans are racists, most will demur. You see, it’s not that they believe a particular Republican is a racist; it’s just that Democrats happen to be attracted to organizations that consider Republicans racists. It is their touchstone.

Do we need more of that in Colorado? It is certainly upsetting and alienating to Republicans, yet we’ve got politicians like Mark Udall, drawn to one of the most objectionable tenets of the Democratic Party, still promoting intermingled seating in the U.S. Senate. He believes simple propinquity will bring Republicans around to his world view. He can sit with them, but he still knows they are racists. What a guy!

We will have to watch the members of the Colorado Black Caucus as they celebrate Martin Luther King Day next week. The MLK holiday is sometimes used by Democratic Party activists to insinuate that Republicans incite racial killing. Will the members of the Caucus show restraint? What did they take away from the exploitation of Gabby Giffords?

Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican on the Supreme Court of the United States, is famously quoted in Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education as saying, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

That makes sense, but the point is apparently lost on the Colorado Black Caucus.

UPDATE 1/10/2012:
The first anniverary of the shooting attack by Jared Loughner brings to mind this WSJ article by Glenn Reynolds. The accusation of racism might be losing some of its sting, but characterizing Republicans as "accomplices to murder" still packs a wallop.

UPDATE 1/14/2012:
This morning, The Denver Post quotes Senator Mark Udall at a Tucson service honoring the lives of those killed in the 2011 shooting. The idea is to use the event to reinforce the perception that Republicans are violent extremists, in their thoughts and in their words.

Senator Udall conveys a quiet sense of moral authority:

Although Gabby now struggles with her words at times, we know what she's trying to say. It's a simple concept. Words matter, and these days you don't hear our elected officials using words to bring us together. Too often words are used as weapons.

Senator Udall has a pious sense of triumphalism as he delivers his remarks, but there is no doubt who wears "the black hats." Republicans feel ambushed, with nobody riding to their defense. Non-Republicans relish a righteous sense of affirmation.

In the meantime, our culture says, "Mission accomplished!"

UPDATE 1/16/2012 (MLK Holiday):
The Blaze notes the use of the pulpit where Martin Luther King preached to attack Republicans. As Glenn Reynolds says, "Separation of church and state is for the little people."

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Repetition

PolitiFact, a subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times made news on 12/20/2011 when it published its 2011 Lie of the Year. The controversial expression was “Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

PolitiFact provides several instances of the expression being used from 3/31/2011 to 8/30/2011. In a post on the fund-raising efforts of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), I also noted its use:

Harry Reid on 9/19/2011:
“Paul Ryan dreams of ending Medicare forever.”

James Carville on 9/30/2011:
“Jim DeMint will end Medicare.”

The good news is that the “Lie of the Year” designation has caused a modification in language used by the DSCC. A 12/22/2011 fund-raising letter (two days after the PolitiFact publication) uses this phraseology:

Kick Grandma Off Medicare & Give Her a Coupon: Republicans all lined up in favor of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s extreme budget plan earlier this year that would kill Medicare as we know it and turn it into a voucher program.

I suppose that’s progress, but the style and intent remain: Republicans are bad people who want to steal from our Seniors. Those are classic Democratic Party themes.

The use of truth or fiction by a political movement becomes subordinate to the task of repeating the themes. In the Middle East, Arabic cultures teach that Jews are bad people. In Asia, the North Korean culture teaches that Americans are bad people. The techniques of repetition are widespread in both anti-Semitic and anti-American cultures.

Is something like that going on here?

One thing we do know is that if you want to be cool like the cast members of Saturday Night Live, you had better not be a Republican.

And when you are on the DSCC mailing list, you receive an even stronger message.

In teaching a belief system, truth or fiction is not an issue. What’s important is the repetition.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Dickensian (dih-ken-zee-uhn)

Lakewood Center for the Arts 2009 production of Oliver!

(Shea Mackinnon as Oliver and Jay Horenstein as Fagin)

One of the themes of the Democratic Party is that Republicans are harming our children. Newt Gingrich recently brought new energy to this theme. Speaking in Iowa on December 1, Mr. Gingrich said:

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal.

Cue the outrage!

Joan Jacobson expressed her feelings in The Denver Post on 12/10/2011:

One benefit of Newt Gingrich’s proposal to pay poor kids to clean their schools is that it would give the rich kids in those schools valuable experience in how to treat “the help.” These kids are too young to have acquired noblesse oblige, so it’s inevitable that they will say stuff like, “Hey, Janitor Boy, mop up my mess!” in the lavatories and, “Maid Girl, take my plate away!” in the cafeterias. But we can pay for expensive counselors to teach sensitivity training to the rich kids. Or, we could just put up with bullying by the rich of the poor on the basis that this is how the real world works and so it is good training for kids on both ends of the economic spectrum.

Ed Quillen followed up on 12/11/2011:

I never encountered any stories suitable for the children of America's right-thinkers. A story where, say, most of the kids get together to beat the tar out of the new kid who's "different." Or the one with everyone cheering at the death of a character who didn't have health insurance. Or shooting the brown-eyed kid who tried to get into their gated community. Or maybe a story where the cool kids had fun mocking the kid who couldn't afford the newest styles and Newt Gingrich could lead them in chanting, "Get a haircut."

Once again, Republicans are off their meds. They enjoy mocking, bullying and killing. Our culture reminds us that Republicans are really bad people.

Or maybe that’s just The Denver Post. Keith Koffler, writing at Politico, sees it as a new political strategy employed by the Democratic Party. In an effort to get president Obama re-elected, the Democratic Party is crafting a new reality:

Obama’s is a Dickensian world in which greedy rich people and unscrupulous bankers receive special favor and the rest of us are ground under their avarice into penury.

Whether we are seeing a new reality or just a rehash of Democratic Party themes, it does appear that we are going to get a strong dose of Dickensian medicine over the next 11 months.

Let’s watch and see whether it cures America’s ills.

UPDATE 1/17/2012:
Newt Gingrich gets a standing ovation while defending his remarks at a debate held in Myrtle Beach, SC on 1/16/2012.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Themes versus Facts

Congressman Paul Ryan went through the details of his budget proposal on the Hugh Hewitt Show a few days ago. One of his comments stood out:

And a lot of people just don’t know how messed up the federal budget is, and what it’s going to take to get it under control. A lot of people still believe, and the polls show this, they think Obamacare, you know, lowers health care spending. I mean, so we’ve got a challenge on our hands. The good thing we have with this, Hugh, is the facts.

But isn’t that the crux of the Republican problem? Republicans believe "the facts" will save them.

Maybe a little context is needed.

Yesterday, Mr. Hewitt interviewed Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch had a rather direct characterization of the Democratic Party:

They play politics very, very tough, they play it well, and they don’t give a damn about what’s right and what’s wrong.

Those are strong words from a person with a lot of political experience. Perhaps we should take note.

Here’s an incident from the other end of the political power spectrum:

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie “Fair Game” starring Naomi Watts and Sean Penn. It’s the story of the Valerie Plame affair, as told by Jez and John-Henry Butterworth. Like “The Conspirator,” the movie leaves you with the lingering feeling that Republicans are bad people.

My wife and I debated the format of the film. I brought up the politics of Richard Armitage, the depiction of the Wilsons in Vanity Fair, and the prosecutorial work of Patrick Fitzgerald. I thought I was covering “the facts,” but the theme is what prevailed. The film teaches you that Republicans are bad people, and that’s the impression that dwells with you.

Here’s one more “fact” to keep in mind:

My link to the Butterworths cites their screenplay as being honored by the Writers Guild of America. The Butterworth brothers were the recipients of the 2011 Paul Selvin Award for “written work which embodies the spirit of constitutional rights and civil liberties.”

That’s an institutional award; one that reflects our culture. Can you guess which political group is depicted as being against “constitutional rights and civil liberties?”

Return to Top
 
Return to Bottom

The Conspirator

Robert Redford’s latest film “The Conspirator” opened this past weekend. The reviews are generally positive, with many critics reflecting on the timeliness of the subject.

The movie itself is about the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and the role played by a boarding house proprietor named Mary Surratt. Mrs. Surratt was accused of being an active conspirator in the Lincoln plot, and was put on trial in a military court along with three other alleged conspirators.

The movie was released on April 15, 2011 to coincide with the 146th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s death. The tragedy of that time was the American Civil War, which began near Charleston, South Carolina on April 12, 1861 when the Confederacy bombarded Fort Sumter at the mouth of Charleston Harbor. The war ended four years later on April 9, 1965 with General Robert E. Lee surrendering at Appomattox, Virginia. Less than a week later, President Lincoln was dead.

While there was obviously great drama at this time in our nation’s history, Mr. Redford chose to focus on the circumstances of Mrs. Surratt. Why is this?

Patrick McDonald from hollywoodchicago.com thinks he knows:

The aim of Robert Redford in the construction of The Conspirator is obviously to parallel the circumstances of the last 10 years, where the fear of terrorism has led to perpetual war and the suspension of highly regarded constitutional beliefs in exchange for an illusion of safety. The debate about that legality in the film consists of the same concerns that takes [sic] regarding the Guantanamo Bay detention camps and the politicians who believe that war powers means the suspension of fair trials, privacy and yes, freedom.

And so we see the relevance. Our Constitution prohibits unlawful imprisonment in the United States except in cases of rebellion or invasion, when “the public safety may require it.”

As you can imagine, political leaders like to suspend habeas corpus and declare the public safety in jeopardy whenever it helps them navigate difficult situations. Why get involved in messy civilian trials when you can use military prisons and tribunals?

Suspensions have occurred during the Civil War and World War II. More recently, our leaders have wrestled with the question of whether this constitutional right applies to non-citizens, specifically those persons designated as enemy combatants.

But back to Mary. She is portrayed as a sympathetic figure…
She is a woman.
She is a practicing Catholic.
She is struggling with problems within her family unit.

The people arrayed against her are of a different stripe. Those who testify against her appear to be less than truthful. A military officer is duplicitous in the representations he makes “off the record” versus those under oath. The leader of the military tribunal clearly shows antagonism toward the legal counsel representing Mrs. Surratt. The whole process is “a rush to judgment.”

In this context, Mr. Redford contrives for us a quiet display of the theme that “Republicans are shredding the Constitution.” The people “wearing the black hats” are associated with a Republican administration, and they come across as shallow and opportunistic. While the film doesn’t resolve the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Surratt, we leave the theater knowing that we don’t like the people who adjudicated her.

And this brings me to the purpose of this post. People in America are divided on the issue of the Constitution.

Republicans believe they know what our Constitution says. Others believe they know what the Constitution means. To these latter individuals, the Constitution is a document of charity, compassion and forgiveness. It speaks of human yearning, and has but a glancing influence on the rule of law.

These two different perspectives end up dividing us by political philosophy. We are either Founders or Progressives.

Who is right? Robert Redford weighs in with his cinematic effort, showing how Republicans are those who are shredding the Constitution. He lets us know that habeas corpus must be preserved at all costs. The constitutional exceptions noted in Article One, Section 9, Paragraph 2, can be ignored.

Does it seem that I am projecting a little of my own bias onto this gifted actor and director?

Probably, but then why not take the occasional liberty with things like the juxtaposition of the title and photo of a blog post?

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

All Hell Breaks Loose!

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin is chairman of the House Budget Committee. Today he announced the GOP “Path to Prosperity.” It is what House Republicans are offering as the budget of the United States for fiscal year 2012.

The budget acknowledges Hauser’s Law, proposing a 20% cap on federal spending rather than the 23% currently being promoted. It proposes welfare and healthcare reforms that acknowledge the motivations behind the choices people make in these programs. It acknowledges the complexity of our current tax law and proposes to simplify it.

Representative Ryan notes in his concluding paragraph in the Wall Street Journal, “We can reform government so that people don’t have to reorient their lives for less.”

Well…

Get ready for the preening of the Democratic Party. This will be a display for the ages!

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the Democratic Party theme that “Republicans are bad people.” They will also understand how our current federal executive branch evaluates each national policy action from the perspective of what it does for the power and authority of the Democratic Party.

Republicans have offered a policy proposal, and they will be met with characterizations of them being the worst of the worst. You say you haven’t seen much of the theme, “Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe”? Get ready for it. How about, “Republicans are stealing from our Seniors”? That will be front and center as well.

The idea of meeting policy proposals with negative characterizations is time-honored politics.

Let the demagoguery begin.

UPDATE 4/8/2011:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warns that Republicans are at war with women:

"We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women..."

"This is the same old ideological turn back the clock for women..."

"Women are predominantly the recipients of Medicare, and they are going to be hurt by this."

"There is actually a war on women."

Representative Pelosi's remarks are not quite as strong ("the new civility") as those delivered by Representative Louise Slaughter who believes that newly elected Republicans are "here to kill women."  That disquieting theme of the Democratic Party is being used more frequently.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Cat in the Bag

“The Cat in the Bag” is in print!

As you check out this blog, have you ever wondered, “Where the heck is this guy coming from?” This book will connect the dots. You can now order it in paperback from amazon.com or download the Kindle edition.

“The Cat in the Bag” looks at the secret playbook used by the Democratic Party. It covers the themes that create America’s anti-Republican culture, and shows how these themes take on great power with a coordinated narrative. You won’t be surprised to find that “Republicans are destroying the environment” is one of those themes, and that environmentalists promote this theme with what borders on religious zeal.

The book is serious when exposing the themes, but has fun spoofing the antics of the Democratic Party. One chapter highlights the difficulty of bringing “social justice” to our economic structure through the imposition of a wealth tax. (Don’t anyone get any ideas here!)

“The Cat in the Bag” would not be in print if it weren’t for the efforts of Ekot Literary Service and Esther Jackson-Stowell. Esther is the wife of Rich Stowell (author of “Nine Weeks” and “Tunnel Club”) and she is the force behind Ekot Literary Service. She makes the process of getting your book in print painless and inexpensive.

On that last point, please note that I investigated publishing “The Cat in the Bag” using the services of Tate Publishing. Their quote (for a hardcover edition) had a minimum cost of almost $4,000. Esther was able to get “The Cat in the Bag” on Amazon for less than $500. That’s good value!

For those of you trying to get a book published, the rejection notices can be a bit discouraging. It might make more sense to enlist Esther’s services and go the paperback/Kindle route. If the market dictates, you can then publish in hardcover.

Esther turns the conventional publishing process upside down, but in our Internet age, it just may make the most sense.

UPDATE 1/26/2013:
The New York Times lets us know the cat's out of the bag!

Return to Top
 
Return to Bottom

Why Not a Referendum on the Democratic Party?

Political pundits are wondering how Republicans should position their debate coming into the 2012 election cycle.

Should it be on policy or on the records of individual politicians?

My preference would be to highlight the recent practices of the Democratic Party and put them up for evaluation by our electorate. We need to find out if our current political atmosphere is “right” for America.

To put this in perspective, look at some recent events. Does it seem appropriate that every domestic and foreign policy issue has to be examined from the standpoint of what benefit it can bring to the power and authority of the Democratic Party? Rising fuel costs, unrest in the Middle East and governmental spending all must be examined in two ways: What is right for the country, and what does it do to enhance the power and authority of the Democratic Party.

Many Americans don’t see a problem with this stance. After all, it’s just politics…and elections have consequences. But shouldn’t it be discussed?

There are so many examples from the last few years: President Obama closes the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, or does he? His timing and actions are based on what increases the power and authority of the Democratic Party.

Attorney General Eric Holder tells us he makes decisions in the context of “my people.” You might think that would refer to people with dark skin tone, but he would not be including Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas. His “people” are those who support the Democratic Party.

Rahm Emanuel doesn’t want to allow a “crisis to go to waste.” He extracts additional power and authority for the Democratic Party at each and every opportunity.

One gets the feeling that our country is being used as a “prop.” We are watching events unfold that clearly do not promote the general welfare. Shouldn’t we be discussing whether “the Democratic Party way” is what we want as “The American Way”?

And then there is something more sinister at work.

Our country is beset with the constant theme that “Republicans are Bad People.” Individuals such as Representative Steve Cohen characterize Republicans as liars over the use of the terminology “government takeover of healthcare.” A more accurate phrase might be “government control of healthcare,” but then I don’t think Representative Cohen wishes to debate the issue. His point is to characterize Republicans as bad people, and he does that by calling out Republicans as “liars.”

Cultures in the Middle East teach their citizenry to hate people of non-Muslim beliefs, characterizing the infidels as being impure. That makes for effective politics, but is it something that we need to emulate in America? Making sure Republicans are stigmatized as racist, homophobic bigots might be effective politics, but is it the direction we want our political discourse to take? (NPR, what do you think?)

Isn’t it time to turn these “rhetorical questions” into a referendum before the electorate?

Let the debate begin…and then let’s have America vote!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom