Parsing Politics

Do you take issue with “the 47 percent?” Is it wrong that you’ve been categorized and divided through politics? Have you finally had enough… or does it just depend who’s counting?

Anyone who understands America is divided about it’s economic policy should also recognize politicians have always counted voters according to income.  In fact, dividing voters is what politics are all about.  And, in 2012 it’s no different.

If anything, it’s worse!

Today Americans are counted, polled, and pandered to everywhere they go. They are broken down, folded up, repackaged, and quantified. Supercomputers are busy at this very moment crunching complex algorithms that factor your last trip through the grocery store.  Netflix is currently trying to figure out which movies you like to watch.  It happens all the time.

If it isn’t politicians counting you then it is Google. When Google isn’t counting, it’s Visa or Walmart.  As voting consumers there’s hardly any decision you make anymore that isn’t counted or “classified” by someone, or some thing. For Visa it’s about what you buy. For politicians it’s what you think. In the end, it’s all about putting the right things in front of you.

So take it!

Yet Obama would like us to believe he’s not about “that.” He said last week he “represents all Americans.” So does this mean he’s different?  Compared to who ……   Romney!?

Consider: in 2012 Democrats knew they were going to have a tough time keeping the White House if it meant a battle over the economy. They also knew they would likely not score well amongst small business owners, evangelicals, and “tea party districts.” Therefore, the “job” for Democrats this year was not to “worry about them.” They needed to focus on groups they could win.  And just like Romney, they classified America.

To do this Democrats would first need to convince voters jobs weren’t all that’s important in the upcoming election.  So, they rose up to defend all those suffering at the hands of Republicans.  If you belonged to a group that Republicans have “targeted” you may be in trouble.  If you belong to a “special interest” and think the election is about the economy, you should reconsider.

It seems here Democrats understood – on the economy there was wiggle room.  “Occupy Wall Street” would have “47 percent” of America setting the stage for them. All they needed to do was take their place on it, and declare “an unfair economy.”  Voters, in the meantime, would have to battle “straw men” out to take away their rights.

Following September 2011, with the GOP officially battling for a candidate, and their strategy in place on the economy, Democrats set out determining their coalitions. It’s not hard to imagine here “the cocktail napkin” as it slid across the table from Axelrod to our “Commander and Cheif.”  It would’ve looked something like this –

A) “War on Women” – Winter

B) “Obama is for Gays” – Spring

C) “Amnesty for Under 17” – Summer

D) “End work for Welfare” – Fall

Through a process of empty gestures and bizarre executive orders the Obama Administration would make some declaration regarding each of the above topics. In order to substantiate a fight, Axelrod and his surrogates then took each cause before the pulpit of Sunday morning’s most convincing news programs. Additionally celebrities along side Sandra Fluke would help carry their message to the DNC, while President Obama avoided “tougher” news forums and instead made his case to late night audiences, morning talk shows, and the reader’s of America’s most popular entertainment rags.

Where foreign policy is concerned, Democrats would remind us there is “no Usama” because there “is Obama.” Bill Clinton would also be counted on, in spite of his unambiguous criticisms of the President, to lend credibility during the Democratic National Convention.

Additionally, a third stimulus plan, or “QE3,” was determined best held off till late in the election, as a means for providing one last shot of adrenalin to the economy, and would act as a final line in the Democrats first draft of the campaign. Then they would then sit back and watch for an “unexpected opportunity,” while defining the GOP candidate through the most destructive narrative they could find.

By May of 2012 it was all but certain who the competition was, and as luck would have it “opportunity” struck. In Romney’s “47% video” Democrats had the perfect weapon. Any concern about the manner in which the video was obtained would be cosidered secondary, and all but  overlooked  in today’s media.  As an added sting, and to distance themselves from it, James Carter the 4th would surface the video; whose grandfather Jimmy Carter was being frequently compared by Republicans to Obama as America’s worst President.

The video was used with precision, same as the stimulus.

Stimulus QE3 2012– has been considered a potential strategy by economists advising the White House for over a year.  And while quantitative easing is expected to lower prices for credit  over the short term it has yet to do much for unemployment.  It is also considered by some economists to have serious potential as a catalyst for inflation in years to come. Furthermore, since QE3 was regarded an “all else fails” strategy by the White House, its implementation at this point defies White House’s claims of an improving economy, and is expected by some economists to have no effect at all.

Accept for politics; as a digital currency swap hoped to promote activity in markets before the election.

Summation: Considering the overall strategy here and the ethics required, one might think such a plan leaves “47 percent” of America feeling a bit insulted. However, it’s brilliance should not be overlooked. All is fair in love and war …… and that includes politics. And, so far the plan is working.

If the Romney campaign wishes to compete against such a plan they will have to find a better way of communicating their message. The strength of the their plan is in it’s details, something many of America’s late night television and morning talk show viewers are glad to overlook. Therefore, they must be more forceful with details and why it is better. And, they must be more diligent about responding to accusations made of Romney by Democrats and the media. Frankly, if the Romney campaign wishes to compete against Obama they may just have to get “more dirty.”

Maybe the debates can change that.

In the end, it’s easy to see how an analysis like this is “just one more conservative crying foul.”  And it is.  Honestly, I am as insulted by Romney’s remarks as anybody.  But not because of what he said. Rather, because he said it….. during a campaign!

Certainly, the one’s most upset by Romney’s “47 percent remark” are those counting on him to win the election and bring reform back to Washington.  Far as the left should be concerned, all he did here was a favor.  And, an ironic one at that.

However, if you really think Obama’s so different, or you don’t think any of this is that ironic, why take my word for it?  How about letting Obama explain for himself? The following link is the full audio from his October 19, 1998 speech at Loyola College. In it he can be heard quite clearly discussing the power of “political parsing.” He even gives a definition for his “47 percent.”

“47 percent?” …… he said, I just call them “a majority coalition of welfare recipients!”

14 responses to “Parsing Politics

  1. But that’s the Democrat party’s gameplan has been for decades…..divide and conquer: women vs men, blacks vs whites, poor vs rich, secularists vs christians, and, now, gays vs straights. True, politics in general has to appeal to the us vs them mentality (it’s only human after all) in order to have a shot. But the Democrat party line, and the Obama campaign in particular, has elevated the politics of division to nauseatingly dizzying heights. Romney simply acknowledged what Obama was up to; he did not necessarily endorse it.

  2. While I agree “divide and conquer” is the root of politics and that Axelrod/Obama has redefined what it means to use “class warfare” in a campaign, I do not think Romney simply “acknowledged” this in his “47 percent video.”

    Romney was also defining his campaign strategy to campaign contributors in the process.

    Therefore, his mistake was not so much saying it as it was not first making his a case to voters and the liberal media. Had he done this during the GOP debates May’s recording would have meant nothing, “inelegantly stated,” or otherwise; just a variation on something he said many times before. But since he did not it came off sounding, as Bill Crystal wrote, “arrogant and stupid.”

    arrogant from the left, and stupid from the right

  3. i – am debating whether to follow a blog that is so opposite of everything i believe in and wonder why would a breitbart follower follow me? I have no respect for what he represented nor to i agree with the negative comments about Dems. or Obama. i have issues with FOX being considered a news prog that is actually a Republican station , the folks that Ryan represents,the fact that he follows,quotes ayn rand and Romney & others who think women are too stupid to make their own decisions?the hyde amendment was a knee jerk reaction that became a law. We all know 98% of women use bc. I know plenty girls(women)who have had abortion at 18, now have kids doing quite well thank you…college good jobs but are in that 47% single parent. As a person of colour,mom i am more than scared to be governed by Romney/Ryan … imagine that finger wagging Gov.Brewer only it will be at all of us brown,black mixed folks and whites considered low life 47%. I grew up thinking America was a good place to live but i have some serioius doubts , esp with what i am reading on your blog – Repubilcans have take a big risk and those 47% include Vets, teachers,firefighters police …city county and state workers cut slashed burned by the GOP.

    • I understand your concerns about the GOP, especially given your life experience. I would never intend to tell someone they are wrong in their opinion.

      However, I do believe to define Romney’s “47% remark” as a general statement about all those receiving government assistance misses the point. While Romney was certainly stupid with his comments, if you listen to the entire video and consider the context, you understand he was referring to a segment of society which is “addicted” to welfare, not those “dependant” on it.

      Of course the number of folk’s dependant on welfare far exceeds those “addicted” to it. And, so Romney definitely misspoke when he used a number like 47%, as that number would have to include the people justifiably receiving it (vets, single mothers, retirees, the disabled, etc.), not just those abusing the system; and it is the ones who abuse the system Romney was primarily referring to.

      At the same time he was also commenting on the notion many people on welfare, but mainly those “addicted” to it but could otherwise help themselves, would not likely vote for him if they believed he was going to make changes to the welfare system (IE – the remark “I don’t need to worry about them; ergo fighting for such votes in the election would be pointless).

      That doesn’t mean Romney however, wouldn’t be fighting for any of these people as individuals. I think if you’re a person who is on some form of welfare, and are trying to better yourself, or are retired, disabled, or a vet, etc., you can pretty well assume Romney wasn’t talking about you; he’s not coming to take away any of your assistance.

      As far as the Democrats; seems to me when you think about the way they use welfare as a political football, and how the bureaucracy of welfare puts government in control of people’s lives, it is them who really think people on welfare are stupid. I might also suggest it is the Democrats who think women are stupid; by treating them like “one sided voters” whose votes can be bought with imaginary threats from “evil Republicans,” who out to take away female contraception (or, as it is now being framed “healthcare”).

      Certainly, Republicans are not perfect, but they’re no worse than the Dems. Frankly, given the state of the economy, and the way Democrats categorize welfare recipients, Latinos, and women, as voting groups that can be threatened, I’d say Democrats are worse. You may wish to consider what Carly Fiorina said a few weeks ago on about MTP about the way Dems treat female voters. I found it to be a very empowering statement for women, regardless of their background or persuasion.

  4. I will check that out … the overview I’ve read already reminds me some of:

    Bertrum Gross’s “Friendly Fascism” –

    Incidentally, a book which has been used by some on the left to point out the very same dynamics. Neverthelesss, it cannot be denied the American public is under constant manipulation regardless of the parties; via the media, and the rich, and so one has to ask just which scenario provides them the greatest control in lieu of that fact; free market, government bureuacracy, or a dictator.

    I’d say, at the moment we are all but headed for an amalgamation of the latter two.

  5. Well stated. I have long thought that if everyone’s words were recorded and every misstep played ad nauseum, we’d be less likely to pounce when someone misspoke, sounded like an idiot, or just plain foolish.

    As it stands, the sound bites win out and logic is slain in the process.

    Now, if the statements played in the sound bites mean the same (or worse) when played in full context, fine. But we even have major news networks splicing these bites to make a candidate say things they never said and the POTUS quotes those tampered bites in debates.

    It’s sick and needs to stop.

    Only We the People can stop it by looking for full quotes and real meaning.

    Also, would you happen to have a link for the speech by Obama? Thanks in advance!

    • Yes, if you’re referring to the Loyola College speech it is at the bottom of the piece we are discussing, embedded in the very last line (in red)

      When you browse my site you will notice links are always in red, and pictures always take you somewhere else for additional insight =]

  6. I like how you are able to step away from the politics and explain your points clearly. Not many people can do that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s