Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Prager Hits the Nail On the Head

If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education -- it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation -- and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories -- such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders -- such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France -- are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans. Second, everything written here about the Democrats -- except about the Iraq War, which was not taking place then -- could have been written when Democrat Bill Clinton was president.

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

This is exactly what I've been saying (only Dennis does it better.) I thought this was important enough to post the whole thing. Please go to Townhall and click on some of their ads/read some of their other stuff to make up for the length.


Anonymous BOBCAT said...

Prager always pens a good one - and he's right about this. I bet we won't see ONE demonrat address this!

As usual......

8:44 AM  
Blogger Patsy said...

Pretty bad that a political party of the United States of America would wish ill for the country its wants to govern. Very sad commentary indeed. Disgusting lack of character, too.

11:41 AM  
Blogger Russet Shadows said...

As much as I wish what Dennis wrote were not true, it is. The DU psychopaths have no defense against this charge; Les has nothing to say; neither do Dora, anonymous, or any of the other hapless Leftists.

I remember when people assailed Republicans for not having a vision for America. Where are these people now, when the Democrats have no vision for America but each man's fingers around the throat of his neighbor?

2:32 PM  
Blogger Les Ismore said...

Well, I think Prager brings up many good points but at the end he concedes that his point is bogus. The whole basis of the political competition in America is that our party (yours or mine) can do better than the other one. That is how you get people to vote for you. In general I think Pragers arguments are unfair. Just another tack on the "lets blame the Democrats for our failures of our last 12 years of power".

Of course we want to be victorious in Iraq but unfortunately it isnt going to happen. If you recall, many Democrats voted for the war authorization. What we didnt vote for was incompetence, arrogance and the idea that sticking your head in the sand will just make things better. It wont and it hasnt.

There is nothing this administration can do to make the magical pony appear other than send in 300,000 or so troops as the generals first projected. And even then the country will collapse as soon as we leave in 40 years or so. In Iraq the failures are too many to count. Not from our troops so please Morgan and others, please dont hide behind the troops on this issue. The failures are from an incompetent and scandalously corrupt administration. Wishing it were different aint gonna make it so. So, we are left with watching the failures and clapping harder or hoping we can pull out of this mess.

Looking back, we can count the Republican comments on things like Bosnia (I can support the troops without supporting the mission - Tom Delay) and look at the same situation. If we were effective in Bosnia it would have hurt the Republicans chances. Just like the economy. If you recall, all during the 90s, the Republicans had the vapors over the raging economy and there was nothing more gleeful than their witch hunt against a sitting, duly elected and popular president. It was Bush and Cheney who really started bad mouthing our economic successes in the 90s when they started their election campaign.

The bottom line here is that you guys all see our desire to get out of Iraq and face the inevitable as wishing for failure. Its not. It is called accountability. Sadly the Republicans will not face up to the massive failures in leadership during their watch and it is up to the Democrats to bear that burden.

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rush says this about the Dems all the time. This is nothing new. J'Mac.

3:55 PM  
Blogger JINGOIST said...

Les you just made Dennis" point! Well done. :-)


5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les, the Dems are the ''burden''. J'Mac.

6:55 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Les, you made more of Dennis's point than he did! LOL!

8:19 PM  
Blogger Les Ismore said...

Actually I think I made the point for both sides, depending on who is in power.

But when you look at Praders column, one cant help but sense the desparation. Desparation I see here as well. Desparation because virtually everything this administration has touched has turned out to be a complete and catastrophic failure. That is some record. So of course, in the Reblamicans goal not to be accountable for any of the tragic disasters they are responsible for whether it is Iraq, Katrina, Afghanistan, NCLB, our budget, or just about anything, as they are wiping the mud off theier collective selves, they (you) just cant help but start whining about those dirty rotten hippies who were right about virtually everything.

Man it really sucks to be a Republican these days!

9:16 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home