The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Trigger Happy

As an independent voter throughout my life I have voted for local, state and federal Democrat candidates more frequently than their GOP counterparts. But the Democratic party has changed, and in recent years my vote has changed as well. Over the past two decades, Democrats have become the party of big government—a party that believes at its core that government can solve all of society's ills and that despite repeated displays of incompetence and corruption, government can somehow provide an unending series of benefits to "those who are the most vulnerable" (a definition, but the way, that has expanding considerably during that same time frame).

In recent years, Democratic majorities have failed the country in their economic policy, their fiscal policy, their healthcare policy and their lack of concern about debt. The Dems didn't blink as they added over $6 trillion to our national debt, and never had a pang of conscience as they witnessed administration scandals that should have given them pause. Their foreign policy is so bad it isn't worth further discussion.

As their polling numbers have plummeted, an air of desperation has crept into Democratic positions. The narrative that they use and their media allies parrot has become increasingly strident. As more and more people begin to push back—to disagree with the big government narrative, the Democrat strategy is to fall back on the two proven linchpins of identity politics—"racism" and the "war on women." It seems that whenever anyone who is not a person of color questions the motives, the competence, the facts surrounding an event, or the motivation of a person of color or a woman, they are either racist or exhibit sexism.

Left-leaning commentator, Kirstin Powers, discusses this when she writes:
In a world exploding in violence, the State Department last week identified an evil closer to home: Bill O'Reilly.

The Fox News host had criticized State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. "With all due respect ... that woman looks way out of her depth. ... It just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for the job," O'Reilly said.

This, according to Obama administration officials, is sexist.

Marie Harf, the department's deputy spokesperson, blasted O'Reilly from her official Twitter account as lacking "intelligence and class" and then justified the juvenile tweet from the State Department podium, telling reporters that O'Reilly used "sexist, personally offensive language that I actually don't think (he) would ever use about a man."
She goes on to defend O'Reilly who she argues is harsh in his criticism of both men and women in government positions. Then she writes:
Democrats have become so trigger happy with the "war on women" charge that they find sexism lurking behind nearly every disagreement. It's a toxic tactic to silence anyone who disagrees. Have we really gotten to the point that any criticism of the competence of the State Department spokeswoman by a man is sexist? Apparently.

Last week, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz borrowed the terminology of domestic abuse to attack Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. At a Milwaukee roundtable, she said, "Republican Tea Party extremists like Scott Walker … are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back."

She also claimed that "Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. ... But that is reality."

It's actually the opposite. Walker disagrees with Democrats, which is quite different from hitting a woman or dragging her by her hair, even metaphorically.
Powers notes the false accusations of sexism to make her point, but the same can be said about false accusations of racism. Again, Democrats are "trigger happy," making phony accusations of racism when politicians like Barack Obama or Eric Holder come under justifiable criticism for their policies or comments.

A sure sign of political and intellectual weakness is evidenced when a party, a politician, or a appointed government bureaucrat uses ad hominem attacks instead of a reasoned defense to defeat his or her opponents. It's also a sure sign that the positions that a party, a politician, or a appointed government bureaucrat are trying to defend are deeply flawed.