New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Dave Weigel sees a pattern emerging. Up in Wisconsin, Democrats are saying that "U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson, a multimillionaire businessman who got into politics via the Tea Party [...] built his business with government industrial revenue bonds; Johnson says it wasn't government money." Meanwhile,
Democrats are doing the same thing in Tennessee, going after another Tea Party-powered candidate, Stephen Fincher, over his farm subsidies.
"The question," Dave asks, "is whether voters see these candidates as hypocrites, as Democrats would like, or whether they throw up their hands and buy the rhetoric" that Tea Party candidates are selling. With 'recovery summer' a costly dud, it's not a very hard sell. Contrast the message at the heart of the Dem's own rhetoric: We're all on the dole now, even our opponents! Anyone who says we can reverse course is really just lying. Bye bye, hope and change, hello petulant inertia!
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
The Democrat game plan so far - using ad hominem attacks to disgrace Bush, Palin, the Tea Parties, the GOP, and other opponents - has been a spectacular failure. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of their party, and has been for ten years.
May '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Hypocrisy is not the worse crime in the world anyway. Getting bent out of shape about it is the act of a teenager.
Jun '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
It's kind of a Catch-22. If, like your competitors, you take advantage of government programs, then you're disqualified because you're a hypocrite. If you don't take advantage of what the government is offering, then you're maybe a failed businessman, and also disqualified.
May '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Actually, this sounds like an effective strategy. Tea Party voters are skeptical of politicians in general. If the Dems press this hard enough, it could affect voter turnout as people perceive the new blood candidates as more of the same.
Jul '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
I don't know about affecting turnout, but knowing a candidate has taken government subsidies would be a definite turn-off for me in a primary election.
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
For me it depends upon the industry and the definition of "subsidies." Government now has its tendrils into just about everything. If those participating in the private economy, even those articulating principled opposition to government subsidies, are disqualified from holding office, then we are lost.
Just as escapees from Cuba or another Marxist paradise often turn out to be formidable patriots, businessmen experienced in the subsidy-driven life can sometimes use their background to be more effective defenders of economic liberty. It all depends on the individual.
Jul '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
George Savage
For me it depends upon the industry and the definition of "subsidies." Government now has its tendrils into just about everything. If those participating in the private economy, even those articulating principled opposition to government subsidies, are disqualified from holding office, then we are lost.
Just as escapees from Cuba or another Marxist paradise often turn out to be formidable patriots, businessmen experienced in the subsidy-driven life can sometimes use their background to be more effective defenders of economic liberty. It all depends on the individual. · Sep 1 at 11:26am
I suppose I could make a distinction between a rent-seeker who lobbies for subsidy and a passive recipient, who merely applies for a subsidy once it's been institutionalized.
Then again, I could make the same distinction between a prostitute who advertises her services and a barfly who, the next morning, says, "Uh, hon, you know, I'm kinda behind on my rent..."
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Kenneth: I suppose I could make a distinction between a rent-seeker who lobbies for subsidy and a passive recipient, who merely applies for a subsidy once it's been institutionalized.
Then again, I could make the same distinction between a prostitute who advertises her services and a barfly who, the next morning, says, "Uh, hon, you know, I'm kinda behind on my rent..." · Sep 1 at 11:43am
I actually think that's an important and real distinction. I heartily make and endorse it. See James' heart bleed. Bleed, heart, bleed!
Aug '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Kenneth
I suppose I could make a distinction between a rent-seeker who lobbies for subsidy and a passive recipient, who merely applies for a subsidy once it's been institutionalized.
Then again, I could make the same distinction between a prostitute who advertises her services and a barfly who, the next morning, says, "Uh, hon, you know, I'm kinda behind on my rent..."
Kenneth, you're forgetting opportunity cost. All that goes into subsidies must come from somewhere: and it comes from you, in the cost of lost opportunities.
When other opportunities are closed to you, you hurt yourself by not taking what's left. That's why the ratchet effect of subsidies is so pernicious. It's a sort of tragedy on the commons of economic freedom.
As for the prostitute and the barfly, is that such a hot analogy? Both were out looking, not making do with what's left. A better analogy would compare the prostitute to a bride given in a marriage she did not consent to: she didn't make her bed, but now she has to lie in it.
Edited on Sep 1, 2010 at 1:59pmAug '10
Re: New Dem Strategy vs. Tea Party: Hypocrisy Smear
Also, for whatever reason, I have more respect for the prostitute than the barfly in Kenneth's story. A prostitute is easier for me to understand than a loose woman -- she's at least up-front about expecting payment.