Pulitzer Prize (ooh, ahh) winning columnist Eugene Robinson treats us to this bit of doggerel summing up his thoughts on election night 2009. Typically insightful thoughts include the following:
"The big story from Tuesday's vote ought to be that independents, who gave Democrats their sweeping victory last November, went with the Republicans this time in New Jersey and Virginia. Indeed, Democrats are trying to figure out what this means. Given President Obama's continuing personal popularity, has his cool, nonconfrontational, consensus-building style been the right strategy all along? Or, as some on the left believe, did a lack of fight and fervor leave independents cold? Or was it all about the unemployment numbers?"
Robinson correctly identifies the "big story" from the election--that independents went over to the Republicans. His attempt however, to dissect the issue from the perspective of "Democrats" (but not him of course. He's a journalist), falls laughably short. Providing us with a choice of two possibilities--Robinson posits that the loss may have been because of a lack of emotion on the part of Dems OR unemployment numbers. Um---could it have been that the there has been disappointment with independents at the performance of the man who romanced them in the Presidential election? Could it be that they've measured the man and found him wanting, along with his policies? Could it be that there is a genuine movement in the country expressing serious doubt about the wisdom of moving forward with a decidedly neo-socialist program, and that that movement found voice in the election?
Nah. Those folks are all just Sarah Palin zombies. Nothing more to that--move along.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
You wonder...do the Eugene Robinsons of the world actually believe this crap, or do they know the situation is bad so they write columns like this to convince people otherwise?
'Journalists' can't imagine that Obama's socialism is not popular, much less, unpopular. If you've never made a payroll, distributing wealth is a great, 'fair' idea. With unemployment at a European 10.2% and staying, we'll see how America likes His anti-capitalist, wealth distributing policies. And just wait for the taxes!
The biggest predictor of elections has and always will be unemployment. People vote their pocketbooks, and unless there's some overwhelming foreign policy situation (Vietnam, WWII, Led Zep reunion) they will continue to vote their pocketbooks. Americans will not tolerate the unemployment inherent in the socialist model. They will break their necks to vote these people out, the only question is how much damage can they do before that happens.
GDH--you raise an interesting question, one that gets me back to my new hobby horse--neo-socialism. True socialism has no unemployment, right? Everyone's got a job, doing something, even it its just digging holes. Neo-socialism--because it is after all, socialism with a capitalist smile--seems very likely to carry with it STRUCTURAL unemployment, as it the true capitalists have less incentive to hire ACROSS THE BOARD which will tend to keep unemployment higher. What we may have is an inherently "unstable" condition, one in which a society engaged in neo-socialism (an American society, let's put it that way), must either reject it OR continue straight away into socialism. This is worth thinking about.
CW - I like your follow up to GHD. If I didn't know better (and if I was unaware that you lack a tweed coat, burl pipe and beard), I'd swear you were a professor emeritus of political science.
Post a Comment