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!”