Our Liberal Betters
Some Democrats have responded to this blurb with a hearty "Aha!":
Strategists for both presidential campaigns detected a late shift to Bush by lower-income voters who were concerned about terrorism and values. Matthew Dowd, former chief strategist for Bush-Cheney, said these voters "decided they were voting in the national interest rather than their self interest on both the economy and national security."
"See!", they say, "those idiot red staters don't understand that our policies are better for them. Those nasty Republicans have tricked them into being so afraid of terrorists and gays that they'll vote against their economic self-interest. The fools!"
Ignore for a moment the faulty premise that conservative economic policy is worse for lower-income voters and instead concentrate on the disdain the Dems have shown for these people. They sneer at them and think they're idiots because they won't vote for simple take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor promises. Apparently the only people allowed to rise above their own self-interest are the super-rich liberals: the Kennedys, Kerrys and George Soros of the world (not to mention assorted Hollywood princes and princesses). Thank God for our enlightened liberal elite!
As for the rest of us, we should just screw what we think is best for our country and vote for whoever will pander to us the most. What a nice peek into the liberal mindset.
Maybe the Dean-led Dems figure that since they've accused those who didn't vote for them of being (in no particular order): stupid, prejudiced and foolish, they should throw them a bone and point out that at least they're not selfish (although they should be)? I guess that's one way to reach out to the other side. ;-)
Posted by at June 13, 2005 04:42 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/953
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # June 14th, 2005 5:40 AM dnmore |
| How one interprets the following quote from Justice Janice Rogers Brown pretty much determines how you interpret this bit of commentary:
"Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems?" |
| # June 14th, 2005 7:49 AM BrianH |
| I agree with that quote. And I assume most conservatives will generally agree.
But you obviously left out a bit. I assume the missing bits were explanatory and didn't change the tone of it? |
| # June 18th, 2005 12:23 AM mbrlr |
| Conservative economic policies are bad for the poor. Go to the Delta. Look around. Go to the inner city. Look around. Go to Wal-Mart. Look around.
|
| # June 18th, 2005 1:40 PM BrianH |
| mbrlr,
Most of the inner city's problems are either caused or exacerbated by the liberal economic and social policies of the past. The biggest problems I see are high crime, lack of businesses and employment due to high crime, drug dependency, crimes caused by drug dealers and users and too many fatherless families. I was at Wal-Mart this morning. I saw a thriving business. I saw a parking lot full of reasonably well off people. I saw a store full of reasonably priced goods. I saw a store full of employees. I saw new businesses popping up across the road from the Wal-Mart. I saw people working at those new businesses. Did I miss anyting? I can't speak much about issues in the Delta. I don't live near it and don't know enough about the problems and successes (or failures) to draw any firm conclusions. I visited Biloxi and places in both directions along the coast this spring. I saw a lot of new development and a few old shacks. It appeared the areas were prospering and improving rather than deteriorating, but that was a very cursory exposure and it may not be representative. Laura could probably give a better anaylsis since she's in the area. Conservative economic policies promote businesses and employment. Liberal economic policies punish the successful, discourage business and put people out of work. |
| # June 18th, 2005 6:58 PM Laura |
| We're doing pretty well since Ray Nagin, the new N.O. mayor, and conservative businessperson was elected. Nagin's a straight up guy and one of the first things he did was clean out decades of corruption that flourished under Morial and his predessors. Nagin's a Dem, but a conservative Dem and he's doing a good job.
In general, the help wanted section is looking pretty good, people who want to work generally can, and Nagin has some new programs to help people who need it get job training, which is a project near and dear to my heart. |
| # June 18th, 2005 9:34 PM mbrlr |
| The only reason I subscribe to the Tim LaHaye theory of religion at all is the presence of Wal-Mart in the modern world. We must live in the end times. Look at their record in hiring, look at how they generally will not start people full time and thus causing those folks to have no benefits, and look at how they make the benefits very difficult to use and obtain once you do work full time. Many businesses have tried to employ this model based upon Wal-Mart's success.
The result? Many Wal-Mart employees are on public assistance. Based on that, I'd say Wal-Mart and other major companies employing that model have let the side down by keeping folks on the poverty rolls. But I suppose the serfs should be happy. Next time you shop there, toss them a coin. I almost guarantee Wal-Mart employees will jump for it as it rolls. |
| # June 19th, 2005 8:40 AM BrianH |
| mbrlr,
Do you speak from personal experience at Wal-Mart? Do you actually KNOW anyone who works there? I suspect not or you wouldn't have such a low opinion of those people. I do know people who work there. In most cases (every case maybe?), the Wal-Mart job was a BIG step up from what they were doing. Yes, many of the jobs are part time. That's true of almost ALL retail stores. Or do you know of a major retailer who only hires people full time, gives them higher than average wages and pays for 100% medical coverage? There are also people who started out as part time clerks who are now in management. And think about it a little. The employees there aren't slaves or serfs. They are free to look for jobs elsewhere. If Wal-Mart were as bad as you say, most of those employees would abandon it for better jobs elsewhere. |