PrintDemocrats reveal their contempt for voters
Amazing, isn't it? The Democrats are so arrogant that they cannot refrain from publicly boasting to fellow New York Times—reading elites how they manipulate the yahoos out there (that is, you and me).
One example of yahoo—deception in this New York Times Sunday Magazine article is the successful Democratic effort to fool the public into believing the Constitutional design of checks and balances was being gutted by Republicans who were trying to stop Democratic efforts to filibuster the Administration's appointments of Federal judges.
In reality, this principle of checks and balances refers to the reasoning behind having three separate branches of government. It does not refer to a parliamentary tactic using a minority of Congressmen to frustrate majority rule. Indeed if anyone can be accused of abusing tradition it would be the Democrats who have misappropriated the filibuster power of the Senate, blocking majority—supported nominees as they had never before been blocked in the entire history of that august body.
Geoff Garmin, a leading Democrat pollster, blithely admits that the Democrats manipulated the public's view of this issue because the concept of a filibuster was "beyond the pay grade of the American voter."
How revealing of the Democratic mindset regarding John Q. Public! They nakedly proclaim the view that the majority of Americans as being ignorant and beneath contempt. While advertisers happily pony up tens of thousands of dollars for a single page advert in the Sunday Times Magazine, Democrats seem to think nobody will notice their disregard of the intelligence of their constituents. The worldview is so deeply ingrained that they do not even see it as something remarkable to be discussing in the national forum.
Of course, since their friends in the National Education Association have done such a stellar job of educating Americans, the commentary is probably sadly accurate.
The article provides a revealing blueprint of Democratic efforts to control the hearts and minds of a public they view as being ignorant and beneath contempt. The usual suspects play their assigned roles: Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, and the rest of the supporting cast.
The theorist behind these latest strategies is George Lakoff, a left Coast linguist who teaches at Berkeley [what is it about linguists hating Republicans? Chomsky, Lakoff, and who else?).
Lakoff may not have a workable strategy for Democrat victory, but that may be beside the point. He knows how to make his Democrat clients feel better and make money while doing so (taking a page from pollster Zogby, perhaps?)
Lakoff views Republicans as embodying an image of a strict father who lays down inflexible rules and imbues his family with a strong moral order. Liberals, on the other hand, are seen as nurturing parents who teach their children to pursue happiness and care for those around him. In other words, Republicans are martinets with a cramped view of the world around them; liberals are charitable and care for everyone's well—being.
Lakoff is the epitome of the type of evil genius (wannabe division) that George Orwell warned us about when he wrote "1984" and created the concept of the Thought Police. Orwell's portrayal of a dystopian society where language was one of the tools used to control people was a reflection on Nazi and Stalinistic tyranny. But Orwell also stated that his views were also a reflection of what he observed in the bureaucracies created by the Labor Party when they obtained power in England after World War Two.
A cautionary word to the Democrats: overweening pride has brought down others in history and it will do so again.
