Changing the Subject

America's trial lawyers are among the stauchest supporters of Democrats and Barack Obama. When long needed tort reform is proposed, they leap into action, urging their Democrat friends to demagogue the subject so that nothing gets reformed. They win every time.

One of the cynical aphorisms adopted by good trial lawyers is this: "When your client is guilty, change the subject!" Apparently they've taught this lesson to the Democratic strategy makers in Washington. Over the past five years, Democrats have watched as an incompetent and in some cases corrupt administration has failed to revive an ailing economy, racked up additional trillions in debt, brought an already struggling healthcare system to crisis, fostered scandals that rival (and in some case surpass) the hated Nixon administration, and initiated changes to existing law (via regulatory or executive fiat) that have questionable constitutionality. Democrats have remained supine as all of this was happened, in many cases actively defending the indefensible. Now, as the Reverend Wright might say, 'the chickens are coming home to roost' with the upcoming 2014 elections.

What do do?

When your client is guilty, change the subject!

Since discussion of the economy, debt, Obamacare, the IRS, the NSA, the CIA or any other substantive matters are poisonous to democratic candidates in 2014, one element of a strategy for reelection will be to focus on "the war on women." John Stossel summarizes:

You've probably heard that Democratic Party leaders decided that a way to win votes this November is to shout loudly that Republicans wage "war on women." Politico calls this a "proven, persuasive argument."

Give me a break.

Well, maybe not. For low information voters, social issues, both real and imagined, hold sway. Economic numbers are deadly boring, scandals require careful study so that the dots can be connected, government policy is complex and difficult to understand. But a "war on woman?" Not only is it alliterative, it's ... easy to believe, even if it's demonstrably untrue.

Stossel expands the discussion:

President Barack Obama and his supporters brag that Obamacare forces health insurance companies to sell men and women health insurance for the exact same price. On my TV show this week, Democratic activist Jehmu Greene asks indignantly, "Do you want to live in a country where you charge women more than men?"

Well, yes, I do. Insurance should account for costs. Women go to doctors much more often. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say, even if you exclude pregnancy visits, women are 33 percent more likely to visit a doctor.

Insurance companies used to reflect that in prices. That isn't bigotry -- it's just math.

Insurance companies still charge men more for car and life insurance. A survey of car insurance companies found that the cheapest policy for a woman cost 39 percent less than for a man. A 60-year-old woman pays 20 percent less than a man for a 10-year life insurance policy. Seventy-year-old women pay half as much as men.

That's just math, too, because most women live longer than men and, despite the "woman-driver" stereotype, we men get into more car accidents.

I don't hear activists complaining about men paying too much. The "victim" propaganda works only when women pay more.

The sexes are simply different. Yet government demands that colleges have gender-equal sports participation. It's fine if dance and art groups are mostly women, but if athletic teams are too male, lawsuits follow.

Obama even cynically repeats the misleading claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar men make, although his own Department of Labor says the difference evaporates once you control for experience and other choices.

But none of this matters when emotion overpowers intellect, and that's what both trial lawyers and democrat strategists count on. It often works, and that's a shame.

----------------
An aside: There's another element to the "war on woman" meme—battle space preparation. As Hillary Clinton begins her march toward the 2016 presidency, it's very important to preprogram the public into believing that anyone who questions her competency, her past actions and dealings, or her recent activities as Secretary of State is engaging in a war on women. Just as critiques of candidate Barack Obama were cynically labeled "racist," the inevitable critiques of Hillary will be labeled "misogynistic." And if the "war on woman" meme is deeply embedded into the public consciousness, those ridiculous claims will be more easily believed. Clever.