Democratic Propaganda Disguised as Election Analysis

Julie Bosman and Monica Davey in a N.Y. Times article, "Republicans Expand Control in a Deeply Divided Nation," use understatement and a rhetoric of "thoughtful analysis" to make their case that Republican victories are negative events even though the people have spoken.  By publishing this article, the N.Y. Times once again becomes an instrument of partisan politics under the guise of high-minded journalism.  The authors have mastered the art of writing to project a sense that the reader is getting an overview of where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.  But in fact, the article is filled with bias against the Republicans.  Distortions abound.

Like the liberal-leftist pollsters prior to the election who assessed all data in a distorted way, these writers continue the left's attempt to put the Republicans on the defensive.  For example, because of the extent of Republican victories in the Congress and the Executive Branch (and soon the Supreme Court), the writers say all the pressure is on the Republicans to produce.  At no point in the article do the authors say that with this Republican return to total power, last seen during the Bush administration during the years 2003-2007, the pressure is on the Democrats to change their philosophy of government or their positions on the issues that have caused them to lose so much ground at the state level as well as at the federal level.

The Democrats have moved into a political cul-de-sac, where they are now trapped and rejected for their leftist momentum over the past few decades, but especially during the Obama years.  Instead of merely being "liberal" to the Republican "conservative," they have become radical and neo-Marxist to the Republican mix of neo-liberalism (accepting big government and the "mixed economy") and social-constitutional conservatism.

The Times authors also state, "Democrats say the change [to having so much power] has the potential to undo years of legislation meant to ensure a more equitable America, upend progress fighting climate change, leave millions stranded without health insurance and usher in harsh laws against immigrants."  The truth is that the leftist drift of past years has not ensured a more equitable (fair) America.  Many of America's cities are the same or worse hell-holes of crime, drugs, dumbing down in education, family disintegration, and unemployment (especially among the youth) than they were ten years ago, twenty years ago, etc.  Who is being treated more equitably than formerly?  What "years of legislation" are these authors even referring to?  It's bunk.

The Affordable Care Act is so flawed that it could not get even one Republican vote.  Is America more fair when a law is passed that half of America's representatives believe is inherently unfair to the taxpayer, unfair to enrollees in the plan, and unfair to the medical profession?  Fairness requires widespread assumptions about the need for such a plan, the cost of such a plan, and of course whether or not the plan deserves to be mandated.  And the Times authors' claim that the Republicans want to enact harsh laws against immigrants is totally bogus.  In fact, the U.S. already has the most generous immigration policy in the world.  The Republicans are concerned with controlling our porous borders, where illegal immigrants are allowed to enter the country to compete with citizens for jobs or to commit crimes or just to get a free ride in our generous welfare system.  And the Republicans are rightly concerned about Islamic terrorism against Americans, which moved to a new threat level on September 11, 2001.

The authors also describe how "the current power balance reflects, among other things, the extraordinary dynamics of a race featuring a television-savvy outsider against the first female major party nominee, the vagaries of turnout in a nation where roughly half of registered voters cast ballots, the systematic redrawing of political maps in ways that favored Republicans, and frustration among voters over lost jobs, low wages and the nation's changing racial and ethnic mix."  "The current power balance" is itself a distortion, since we have a current power imbalance in favor of the Republicans.  Then they quickly reduce Trump vs. Hillary to the lowest common denominator:  he's only a "television-savvy outsider," and she is the "first female major party nominee."  They could have written, "He's a charismatic, dynamic billionaire executive" running against "the first female presidential nominee dogged by scandal and corruption charges for the past 30 years."  Their comparison was to belittle Trump and depict him as the candidate of homo boobiens, who are couch-potato ignoramuses.

The authors end their snide comments by depicting Republicans as sneaky connivers who have rigged election districts and are appealing to voters frustrated about "the nation's changing racial and ethnic mix" (read: "racists").  Is this journalism, or is it propaganda?

Lastly, they state, "In theory, one-party control in a divided nation might spur lawmakers to find bipartisan answers to bipartisan problems."  What logic leads them to this conclusion?  For this writer (I happen to teach philosophy, where logic plays an important role), the logic leads in the opposite direction.  If one party is so consistently rejected by the electorate, then the population desires to see a diminution of the influence of that party – that is, of the Democrats.  Further, the Democrats are anti-bipartisan because they are the party of cultural Marxist ideologues.  In the process of committing to a collectivist vision, Democrats are now often perceived by many as being the party of "anti-" – anti-white; anti-nation-state; anti-free enterprise; anti-melting pot unity; anti-male; anti-family; anti-children; and even anti-responsibility, anti-liberty, and anti-religion.

The Times article closes by quoting the reactions of two Democratic voters who, like the authors, were disheartened by the Tuesday election results.  One of them, Linda Truesdell, is quoted as saying, "Trump was a television personality and that had a big influence on people."  Linda's point echoes the observation Julia and Monica had made earlier in the article.  Trump, in an absurd reduction, is again labeled as though he were merely a TV-screen Kermit the Frog.  This proves once again that shallow minds draw shallow conclusions.