It Is Over
The Democrats are about to be beaten by something that they do not in their heart of hearts think exists, a huge national majority. At this late hour, with the storm clouds gathering and the livestock getting restless, they see only sunshine. Yes, there is "foreign money" out there. Yes, the media have bungled broadcasting the purity of the Democratic message. And naturally, angry voices can be heard. Yet surely there is no majority gathering to unseat the party of decency and good deeds. Well, there is, and it is nothing like how the Democrats describe it.
That majority is amiable and sensible and believes in limited government. It is convinced that we face a catastrophic budget crisis and that measures must be taken against the spending and on behalf of growth. Furthermore, many of these friendly Americans would be delighted to give our president a ride home if they found him on a street corner, though they would be a lot happier if he did not live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They doubt he would ask them in for a drink. After all, to him they do not exist.
Many of these people are tea partyers. Now, they certainly do exist. Yet they are nothing like what the Democrats believe them to be. They are not angry and warlike. They are concerned about what the Democrats have done these past months, but they will retire them the old-fashioned way, through the ballot box.
Our president has a difficult time conceiving of this growing majority that opposes him. Apparently, in May, President Obama asked a group of presidential historians over to the White House to discuss history and to inform him of any historical movements comparable to the tea party movement in all of American history. The historians told him what he wanted to hear. As Peter Baker wrote in The New York Times Magazine, the president wanted to know whether there are "precedents for this sort of backlash against the establishment." If so, "what sparked them and how did they shape American politics?" Reportedly, the historians spoke of the "Know-Nothings" of the 1850s, the Populists of the 1890s and the Coughlinites of the 1930s. Thus, our president was reassured. They were racists and fruitcakes. He heard nothing to challenge his smug sense of history.
Yet once again, he was misinformed by his experts. Michael Barone speaks more accurately of the historical precursors to the tea party movement. He says voters concerned about limited government and federal spending were forming a prodigious movement toward the end of the 1930s. The movement, in his mind, might have successfully challenged President Franklin D. Roosevelt by 1940, but the rising threat of Nazism intervened. Doubtless there have been other precursors to the tea party movement, for instance, the Tea Partyers back in Colonial Boston. The truth is there has been a tug between big centralized government and local government since the founding of our republic.
Reading the piece by Baker was an odd experience. It was talking about a president who, in less than two years, has lost the trust of the American people, especially independents. It quoted soaring rhetoric from Obama in June 2008, when he said, "We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet (the whole planet!) began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth." After that, there will be nothing to do, so we all can play golf or read a good book.
There was also this: "Obama's team takes pride that he has fulfilled three of the five major promises he laid out as pillars of his 'new foundation' ... health care, education reform and financial reregulation." So what? Education reform is a nullity. Ten years from now, test scores still will be in the drink. As for the other monstrosities, they are a large part of the Obama disaster. The growing majority that is about to retire Obama's Democratic majority in the House and possibly in the Senate knows this. The ruling class, including Baker, seems to be oblivious of it, but the rest of the nation knows it.
Socialism is another of the gods that have failed. If you balk at my use of the word socialism, how about if I say liberalism is another of the gods that have failed? What is astonishing is precisely how extreme the liberalism practiced by Obama and the Democrats has been. Well, it has failed. The liberals show no hint that they realize this, but the American majority does. Now that majority has to deal with the mess we are in. As for the liberals, they have to explain why they are summarily leaving office.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His new book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery." To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
If it were an honest election, I would agree
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:10pm.
Well if people weren't allowed to vote by mail with no proof of ID, and if the military vote wasn't summarily thrown out, and if voters had to prove they knew something about who was running, I would agree with you. But seeing as how phony votes (millions!) are already cast, military votes have already been deemed void, and any person can just vote without proving his citizenship or residence, I think the D's will win this one.
Mandate
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:49pm.
If a candidate espouses ten positions, and I vote for him, does that mean that I have endorsed all ten positions?
What's curious about Obama is that he didn't run on any positions in the first place (hope and change are not concrete proposals) and yet he assumed that he had a mandate ("I won"). Which means that, all along, Obama believed that he was the mandate. Like a Greek champion, he thought the voters wanted him to fight their battles for them, and they left the details to him.
That's why, despite all evidence to the contrary, he doesn't grasp that people strongly oppose his policies. They voted for him, didn't they? That means he gets to set the policies. That's why they elected him ... right? How can they oppose his policies, which he personally believes will bring prosperity (even if he's never read them)? That's why they elected him ... right?
In the end, Obama avoided a platform, and patted himself on the back for his cleverness in avoiding any commitments. But like a Greek tragedy, his success set the path for his failure -- because now he sees that without commitments, no one committed to him. They left him faster than they flocked to him.
All that's left is to find a bus big enough to throw America under.
What amazes me most about Obama ...
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:16pm.
... is widespread perception that he's whip smart. I don't think he's impressive at all. Seems what he wants most is for his beliefs to be bolstered, not challenged, lest they not withstand the challenge.
True, that---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:35pm.
and very indicative, not only of the fact itself, but of the ignorance (partisanship?) of those who proclaim Obamas intellectual brilliance.
MD
He's a freakin' wind up toy
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 3:42am.
All he does is read off a TOTUS. He couldn't apply facts to an argument if MaHO's fat hips and thunder thighs depended on it.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
don't warm up the fat lady yet
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 10:40pm.
I sincerely believe we are about to see one of the largest media blitzes of all time – unpaid. The media is going to make the election cycle look like in depth journalism during this next week and unfortunately they will win an enough votes to turn the landslide into a good thrashing. To paraphrase from Herbert’s Dune, there is going to be free propaganda the likes of which even god has never seen.
All said and done the lack of a landslide will be portrayed as a loss due to the extreme activities and opinions of the tea party (their pejorative play on the name will be brought back in force). Hate to be negative but the right has peaked, the races are drawing closer and the media still buys its ink by the barrel. I hope that this is wrong but even if it is then it was worth the fight and hopefully the fight and the conservative shift will build until 2012. (and we get a decent candidate)
You may be right Agnostic
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 10:55pm.
But I cant imagine the media trying any harder then they currently are. Seems no lie is to small, and no accusation to outlandish?
same thing in 2008
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 1:45pm.
Many said the same thing prior to the 2008 elections - "But I cant imagine the media trying any harder...".
I would be willing to go one further in that if this week is truly an event which turns the media into a media brothel then they will sink even lower in two years.
From the TWILIGHT ZONE episode HE'S ALIVE
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:27pm.
Ernst: "They were scum. A temporary insanity, part of the passing scene, too monstrous to be real or taken seriously.
So we ignored them, or laughed at them, because we couldn't believe there were enough insane people to walk alongside of them.
Then one morning the country woke up from an uneasy sleep and there was no more laughter. The wild animals had changed places with us in the cage.
But not again, it mustn't happen again, we can't let it. We simply can't let it happen again! All that nightmare, again? Oh no, not this time!"