Sloganeering Won't Win This November

That's Victor Davis Hanson's and James Lileks' opinion of this fall's elections. Let's take a look at Mr. Lileks' opinion:

The winner was another phrase focus-tested into a thin smear of rhetorical mush: "A New Direction for America." Disaffected Republicans were heartened. You mean less spending, quicker confirmation of conservative judges, permanent tax cuts and increased military outlays? Well, no. Nancy Pelosi announced that should the Democrats retake the House, item No. 1 will be bold and sweeping: They will "give America a raise by increasing the minimum wage."

---------------

The minimum wage was indeed a New Direction, last century, anyway. But when the unofficial GOP slogan is "Fight and win the War on Terror by blowing up more bad guys real good," a call for a wage boost is like running against FDR with a pledge to reduce postal rates.

Democrats haven't had an appealing new thought on the issues of the day since I started voting in 1976. Coming to think of it, they haven't had an unappealing new thought on the major issues of the day since then either. At least if you throw out John Murtha's 'idea' of a rapid response force in Okinawa. That'd qualify as a new idea alright, most likely because nobody was stupid enough to think that a 16 hr. flight with 12 refueling stops as a solution to a fictional problem.

I said months ago that the Democrats' version of the Contract With America would be a clunker. I'll correct that to say that it isn't just a clunker but a huge clunker. Let's take a look at Mr. Hanson's take on this fall's elections:

The recent killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the establishment of a complete Iraqi democratic Cabinet will not ensure a quick victory, as we see from the recent slaughter of American captive soldiers. But both events still weaken the liberal clamor that the American effort at birthing democracy is doomed in Iraq. Calling for a deadline to leave, as Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), and Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA), advocate, is not so compelling when the current policy is based on training the growing Iraqi security forces so that American troops can come home as soon as possible.

---------------

Take the budget deficit. Total federal annual revenues have increased despite, or because of, the tax cuts. Yet at the same time budget expenditures in the first Bush term grew at a much faster annual rate than during Bill Clinton's administration. So the time-honored remedy for the shortfall calls for cuts and a more conservative budget cruncher, hardly a liberal forte.

In other words, it's hard seeing where Democrats can point to having the upper hand on any of the most important issues of the day. Their 'plan' (I use that term liberally) focuses on the 'Mommie Party' issues that were popular in the 1990's. They're pretending that the world has changed since their glory years. Who can blame them? Back then, their flaws were mostly hidden because the Agenda Media could write about a different Clinton Administration scandal each week or about legislation that the Republican congress was pushing.

It's hard imagining the American people voting in sufficient numbers to give Democrats majorities in either house of Congress, especially when they're so intent on not even fighting the GWOT. Certainly, mistakes have been made by the Bush administration in the fight but people notice that they're the only people serious enough to actually fight that war.

People also notice Jane Harman's new line of "cutting & winning" and John Murtha's 'plan' of redeploying several time zones away. They've noticed how unserious the Levin 'plan' is, too, even if Democratic senators haven't noticed.

At the day's end, it's hard taking these slogans seriously when they're so badly out of touch with where America is right now. At the day's end, it's difficult, if not impossible, to take Democrats seriously.

---

Posted Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:40 AM

May 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by Jeff at 22-Jun-06 10:21 AM

Good post.