Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Change Revisited

This morning on Fox & Friends a Democratic analyst/strategist (can't remember the guy's name) was being interviewed on the topic of the Tea Party backed candidates that won in yesterday's primaries, and what it "means".

His answer shows a bit of tone deafness, which, if they really use this strategy -- I hope it backfires:  He said that it shows a civil war going on in the Republican Party (which is true, really) and that the message for Democrats is that the American People still want "Change".  They haven't seen enough "Change".

Back in 2008, I was skeptical that the American people would buy a a meaningless catch word such as "Change".   It means nothing.  "Change" could mean you got to work today and found you got a pay raise or a promotion.  It could also mean you got home and found your house had burned to the ground.

To the Democrats, "Change" means what they want it to mean, and their message is that the American people want "Change".  Handy, that.

Fighting "Change" is, as Thomas Sowell put it over these semantic vaugeries, like "trying to punch the fog".   The only way to fight it is to reveal it for what it is.  The fog is a cloak for whatever it is the Democrats want to do.   It's not the magical mists of Avalon.   It's a tool being used to obscure an agenda from the people long enough to get the seats they need to get it enacted.  And, of course, putting off it's actual enactment date far enough into the future so that nobody will notice the consequences before the concrete is set.

The Tea Party movement has largely been a snowballing group of Americans that see the agenda, and stand up and say "Socialism isn't change we want."

Moderates were sold a sensible sounding, centrist candidate who wanted to control spending, bridge partisanship, and finally bury the racial hatchet.   They got none of these things.   They got more government control, more taxes, all blame for anything thrown on the minority party, and a deck of race cards dealt fast and furiously at anyone who dares oppose him.

I hope this fall people remember this as the well-funded Democrats throw ad after ad painting these Tea Party backed candidates as scary radicals and let that paint slop over on the rest of Republicans even while the actual Republican party often refuses to support the Tea Party backed candidates.

The message for Republicans should be to go back to their base rather than trying to win over new Progressive friends, and the message for Democrats should be to take their party back from its uber-progressive leadership.

The message for Tea Partiers, as Dana  Loesch put it this morning, is to put their money where their mouths are and get out and whip up support for these candidates financially and with rational argument.

1 comment:

tim said...

Luckily here in NY we have a rich guy, Paladino, running for Gov., who doesn’t need anyone’s cash. Oh, and the polls that will spring up soon enough will no doubt show he’ll lose bad had him getting beat soundly this election . He only beat his completion by 2-1.