It's Election Season Again
The mid-term election campaign is in full swing, at least by the Democrats, with control of the House of Representatives in the balance.
Remember the day-after reporting on what doomed Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency? The Obama campaign successfully defined the Republican challenger as an out-of-touch rich guy itching to wage a war on women.
The liberal assault on Mitt started early, went unanswered for months and proved devastating to Republican prospects last November. Obama’s margin over Romney with single women voters was a staggering 36 percent.
Just yesterday, a co-worker in this demographic illustrated the power of emotional wedge issues. Despite her acknowledgement of Obama’s manifest economic failures, she nevertheless could not support the challenger because of Romney’s “extreme position on women’s rights.”
Think of establishing an emotional wedge issue well in advance of an electoral contest as the Alinskyite equivalent of the cloaking device deployed in early Star Trek television episodes. Once switched on, the dreadful economy and other negatives simply disappear from view.
Which brings us to the current campaign for 2014’s defining wedge issue. The Democrats aim to demonize guns and Republicans who resist the ineffective proposals scheduled to emerge from Joe Biden’s task force later this month.
Voters, particularly women, recently targeted with endless stories about slavish Republican concern for “the rich,” will soon be inundated with tales of Republicans, especially conservatives, doing the bidding of “the gun lobby” and thereby endangering “our children” by opposing “commonsense reforms.” If Democrats peel off a few Republican votes and pass additional gun control legislation, the Republican Party will again be split and Obama will emerge victorious. If Republicans hang tough, get ready for two years of scary stories about the sinister, child-hating National Rifle Association and its zombie minions in Congress. Win-win.
Must we sit supinely as we careen toward the approaching Gun Cliff (I believe that just as every political scandal now ends in –gate, every engineered policy crisis should end in –cliff; so Fiscal Cliff begets Gun Cliff)? Can’t we start posing some questions, leading ultimately to the establishment of emotional wedge issues of our own?
Let’s start with corruption. The US Department of Justice under Obama intentionally violated existing federal gun control laws to equip Mexican drug traffickers with dreaded “assault weapons,” causing the death of hundreds, including Mexican children and an American law enforcement officer. Eric Holder has been held in contempt for stonewalling the congressional investigation into Fast and Furious, but no political price has been paid.
Wouldn’t a grant of greater federal authority ahead of a thorough accounting of this spectacular failure amount to a reward for corruption?
Let’s next explore incompetence. As Mark Levin pointed out on his radio program recently, missing from President Obama’s speech detailing the mass shootings occurring on his watch was any mention of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre. Outrageously classified by the Administration as workplace violence, Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 and wounded 29 others in a jihadist attack.
Fort Hood is a federal installation. Under military policy, the base is a gun-free zone. Personal weapons are banned and only civilian base police are armed. Major Hasan knew all this, of course, and was therefore able to plan his attack for maximum effect, confident that, because of federal policy, he would face no immediate armed response.
If federal authorities cannot prevent mass shootings on a military base where all private guns are already banned, why should we believe in the efficacy of Joe Biden's latest killer idea?
The real emotional issue boils down to this: How many deaths are we willing to risk for the sake of political correctness? Military officials were aware of Major Hasan’s email correspondence with radical Islamic clerics and other warning signs, but chose to do nothing. Noticing might look like discriminatory treatment.
Likewise, mass shooters from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Tucson to Auburn to Sandy Hook were all known to be mentally unstable individuals in need of help. But since the demolition of the U.S. mental health system in the 1970s and 80s, we don’t help the mentally ill anymore—unless they ask for it, which the dangerous ones are incapable of doing.
In his new book The Joy of Hate, Greg Gutfeld humorously and effectively describes the left's romance with misapplied tolerance. Extending Gutfeld's thesis to the current controversy, the left requires us to tolerate the madmen in our midst—with intervention permitted only after a lethal outburst—while simultaneously demanding intolerance of hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens peacefully exercising their Second Amendment rights (or purchasing a 20-ounce soda, but that's just Michael Bloomberg. For now).
So, just as the TSA dutifully performs molestation-style enhanced screenings on grandmothers and small children—in the name of fairness, of course—we must now erect further impositions on the nation's 52 million gun-owning households, beginning the long march toward eliminating the 260 million guns in private hands. Because, somehow, focusing on the young loner male with serious, obvious, and frightening mental instability would be unfair.
How about this as an emotional message of our own? The United States should care enough to provide medical treatment for the seriously mentally ill, ending the living hell of homelessness, drug abuse and--rarely but tragically--cataclysmic violence.
What about you? Any ideas for how we might interrupt this latest slow-motion train wreck?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
Release full Eeyore!
Democrats are winning the hearts and minds of voters, that's all there is to it. Instead of moving to the mainstream of the culture, they are moving the culture. Only by viciously controlling the Media; by worrying about ends instead of means. Only by denying every impulse of a Conservative. Only by becoming more like the enemy we abhor, does it seem possible to have a chance.
Of course, all the opposition has to do then is show how hypocritical us heartless fiends are. They've won. They get to keep winning unless we can change the culture ourselves. And we don't have the means or desire to do what is necessary to accomplish that.
Our only chance is that when the crisis hits, and hits hard enough, that the people run to our arms instead of theres. Simultaneously, we need to be ready to keep and expand a governing majority with leadership that convinces instead of triangulates, changes minds instead of fools them. We haven't done it yet, why would we start now?
Oct '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage:
How about this as an emotional message of our own? The United States should care enough to provide medical treatment for the seriously mentally ill, ending the living hell of homelessness, drug abuse and--rarely but tragically--cataclysmic violence.
What about you? Any ideas for how we might interrupt this latest slow-motion train wreck? · · 20 minutes ago
Even if it were possible to solve all or even one of those problems, how could the Republican party possibly motion for this without suggesting we increase the size of government?
The party's been screaming about spending cuts and reducing the size of government since the beginning of time (and rightfully so, I might add).
Jan '11
Re: It's Election Season Again
I don't know exactly what the message should say, but the process seems clear. We know we won't get our message out in press. So we need to buy air and print time/space to make our cause. I'm willing to send checks if I can see them being spent on direct messaging to the public at large. I guess what I'm saying, is I don't want to see them on Ricochet Fox, but rather in the NYT or on MSNBC.
Re: It's Election Season Again
The US government just mandated free-contraception-for-all. Now we learn that the president is promising executive action against hundreds of millions of law-abiding gun owners, likely in violation of the US Constitution. Simultaneously, our government refuses to provide treatment for the very few obviously and severely deranged on the basis of civil rights--a concern cooked up relatively recently in US history.
Our much smaller government in the past routinely provided compulsory psychiatric care when clearly warranted. By eliminating the practice, we have put the citizenry at risk from the tiny number of potentially violent schizophrenics left untreated in our communities. Instead of reversing course and providing treatment, we must be tolerant and massively enlarge the government in order to infringe on the natural rights of the entire population, tracking guns and bullets as though they were sentient beings intent on harm.
Small government advocates ought to be the first to support public care for those suffering from obvious, severe mental illness.
Feb '11
Re: It's Election Season Again
If the GOP has had anything to say about gun control of late I've missed it.
In fact if the GOP has had anything at all to say of late I've missed it.
I've seen all sorts of commentary and news on the internet, even a bit from television- but nothing from the Republican party.
So forgive me for suspecting that there is no such thing as the GOP. It's just a myth made up to fool conservatives into thinking that they have a voice in national politics.
I'm sure I'm not being helpful, but if movers-and-shakers of the Republican party haven't figured out by now that they need to be taking stands on the various issues that come before the public eye then nothing I could possibly suggest will help them.
Feb '11
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage
Simultaneously, our government refuses to provide treatment for the very few obviously and severely deranged on the basis of civil rights--a concern cooked up relatively recently in US history.
Why the blazes the GOP isn't saying this exact same thing- LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY at every possible opportunity- I don't know.
But I think it's a sign of just how thoroughly beaten the party really is. They apparently can't even imagine that they can win a political confrontation with the left, so they never even try. They just curl up, hoping eventually the kicking will stop, and they'll be left in peace.
Or maybe they're just stupid. But in any case I'm really tired of the endless political failure.
Oct '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage
Our much smaller government in the past routinely provided compulsory psychiatric care when clearly warranted. By eliminating the practice, we have put the citizenry at risk from the tiny number of potentially violent schizophrenics left untreated in our communities. Instead of reversing course and providing treatment, we must betolerantand massively enlarge the government in order to infringe on the natural rights of the entire population, tracking guns and bullets as though they were sentient beings intent on harm.
The way you frame it, it sounds like there's going to be an imposition on the public either way (gun control or public funds for the mentally ill). From a purely fiscal standpoint it might be cheaper for the government to require stricter gun registration (outsourcing registration-related costs to those who choose to buy a gun) rather than to tax the citizenry to take care of the mentally ill (which is compulsory, and not a choice).
Oct '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
Tactically, flood the zone with images of women and guns. Mothers with guns. Grandmothers with guns. Single women with guns. Kids with guns. Happy, smiley women with guns. Guns as lifestyle accessory. Guns as fashion statement. Guns as sensible precaution, like a first aid kit or fire insurance. Guns as set dressing. Guns just being there, not even having to be commented upon, because guns are NORMAL.
Strategically, work to destroy the MSM. (Cue sound of hobby horse.)
Edited on January 10, 2013 at 2:58pmRe: It's Election Season Again
I am intolerant of untreated psychosis, particularly in young men.
Public safety is a legitimate government concern, obstructing exercise of my natural right to self-defense is not, and violates the US Constitution.
If we want to save future schoolchildren, theater-goers, shoppers and even soldiers--all those finding themselves in gun-free zones--we need to compel treatment of the young male schizophrenics suffering personality disintegration in plain sight.
There are 250M+ firearms in private hands. So even as a purely practical matter, whatever the president decrees will do nothing to address Sandy Hook.
The actual problem is small, targeted and addressable. But we refuse to see it or acknowledge it because doing so is politically incorrect.
Nov '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
Re: Rawls #7 - you can't with these fist in the air types, can you George?Posted via Ricochet for iPad
Oct '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument." —Wikipedia
Oct '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage
Public safety is a legitimate government concern, obstructing exercise of my natural right to self-defense is not, and violates the US Constitution.
Firstly, there are limits on rights, which is why you can't falsely shout "fire!" in a theater without consequence—a limit on the 1st Amendment.
Secondly, again, taxes (funneled to mental health programs) are compulsory and take liberty out of citizens' hands. It's ironic that you argue for less liberty in this regard while at the same time defending your constitutional liberty to bear arms. My proposal would tax those that choose to license and purchase arms (just like a fishing license), instead of forcing all citizens to pay taxes for bigger government.
Edited on January 10, 2013 at 12:57amMay '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
The Republican Party apparatus on whom success or failure largely depends (incumbent office holders and various campaign committees including the RNC) will dawdle around until maybe Labor Day 2014 before they give any serious thought to how to serve up their biennial "vote for us, we don't suck quite as bad as the other guys" message.
Trying to get them to do otherwise is like pushing a string.
May as well relax and work on our tans (like John Boehner is apparently doing judging by the silence of the House Leadership on the debt ceiling crunch that's about to fall on us in a couple weeks).
Jun '12
Re: It's Election Season Again
Immediately it seems you have to change the higher rates of youth voting. I don't know how you do that. Maybe it would have to be cool to vote conservative, or not to vote at all.
This is a highly narcisstic group that the President resonates with. Both seem to over rate their abilities and have a distorted sense of self (and so do their parents and followers). Both spend copious amounts of time absorbed in themselves and are pretty much unaware of the world around them. It is a short feedback loop; what do I think about me, and what do others think about me?
Obama is also a good Machiavillian. He uses fall guys and emotional issues well.
The current culture sets a low bar; easy to meet or exceed. Democrats do that well, and defend that turf. If we set our sites higher and believe any American can really be better we are derided because we sometimes fail. Yet, when the going gets really rough, it will the high bar people that come through, the low bar people expect it. William Graham Sumner said it well: "The Rich are Good Natured". so are conservatives.
May '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage:
Remember the day-after reporting on what doomed Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency? The Obama campaign successfully defined the Republican challenger as an out-of-touch rich guy itching to wage a war on women.
The liberal assault on Mitt started early, went unanswered for months and proved devastating to Republican prospects last November. Obama’s margin over Romney with single women voters was a staggering 36 percent.
Indeed.
I think it's pretty clear that Romney, his campaign, and the party as a whole, all simultaneously chose a strategy of not defending themselves against those, as well as other, accusations.
And likewise, they chose not to go on the offense.
I think that's really unfortunate.
May '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
George Savage:
Just yesterday, a co-worker in this demographic illustrated the power of emotional wedge issues. Despite her acknowledgement of Obama’s manifest economic failures, she nevertheless could not support the challenger because of Romney’s “extreme position on women’s rights.”
Think of establishing an emotional wedge issue well in advance of an electoral contest as the Alinskyite equivalent of the cloaking device deployed in early Star Trek television episodes. Once switched on, the dreadful economy and other negatives simply disappear from view.
This is an amazing bit of conversation. I've seen similar things myself, though not as clear.
I'm going to suggest an alternative interpretation. I may be wrong here, but I'll just float it by anyway...
Perhaps when she said she couldn't support Romney because of his extreme position on women's rights, she really meant, "Oh yuck, Republican. That is absolutely disgusting. Uh quick, think of an excuse. I know, women's issues. As a man, he can't question it."
If this is the case, it indicates that the Democratic propaganda machine is mighty effective, and the Republican response is mighty ineffective.
Oct '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
Because, I suggest, the GOP insists on playing on the Dem's turf. Republican politicos can't wait to appear on Meet the Press, or give interviews to George Stephanopolous. They obsess over what appears in the Post or the Times. They let the GOP primary debates be 'moderated' by the MSM. All this can do is boost the claims of these propaganda outlets to be neutral arbiters of what the uninformed should think. Then the GOP is surprised when, having spent all this time and effort polishing the credentials of those who portray them as hateful buffoons, disengaged voters think of them as - hateful buffoons.
May '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
genferei
Because, I suggest, the GOP insists on playing on the Dem's turf. Republican politicos can't wait to appear on Meet the Press, or give interviews to George Stephanopolous. They obsess over what appears in the Post or the Times. They let the GOP primary debates be 'moderated' by the MSM.
Oh man, that was such an enormous mistake. 'Might as well have Joy Behar moderate the debate.
And besides the immediate negative impact of that, there's a very important meta-issue -- with that maneuver the party basically admited that it doesn't have the testicular fortitude to stand up, take control of the situation, and have a proper debate on their own terms. And I'll claim that the meta-issue had at least as much of an effect.
Harumph.
And the same thing happened four years ago. Remember when McCain agreed to a debate with Gwen Ifill as moderator, even though she had a book on Obama being printed at the time? Sheeshe.
Nov '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
Rawls, I didn't say you we're ugly or smelly or anything. Hat would be a personal attack. Or perhaps if I called into question your call of duty skillz.No, I take issue with a presumably principled approach to the proper role of government. You don't want the government to regulate your guns, neither do you want the government to have a role in keeping the mentally ill people out of harms way. But this is exactly the argument the left uses against us, on ideological grounds. We want NO government. Imagine if that we're our passionate argument to the people: you shouldn't have to give up your guns, neither should you be forced to pay for the ca of the mentally ill. That'd win us some election right now!No, I don't have any issue with you personally, heck I don't even know you. But I don't think going full Libertarian is going to get us anywhere.
Nov '10
Re: It's Election Season Again
My opinion of this whole gun question is that it's largely an argument of the haves versus the have-nots. Most of the people I know who don't own guns think we need more gun control. ALL of the people I know who own guns think we need, if not less, certainly not more. I don't know of an impassioned plea on behalf of gun owners that going to work with the have-not crowd, because they don't understand the value in owning guns. So I suggest this: take 'em shooting! That'll convince 'em.