Chris Matthews abandoned any pretext of impartiality (what little remains) during an interview with Tea Party favorite and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Bachmann refused to take the bait when Matthews sneeringly inquired whether or not Bachmann was going to investigate Democrats in Congress. Bachmann did what politicians in this media-driven age almost always do: she ignored the question and stuck to her talking points. Matthews, who apparently has never dealt with that kind of reaction before, then decided to take the lowest road available, repeatedly asking Bachmann if she was “in a trance.” Contrast Matthews’ churlish, childish behavior with that of Fox News’s Greta van Susteren, when she interviewed Florida governor Charlie Crist recently. Crist ducks van Susteren’s questions as well as Bachmann did, but the difference between van Susteren and Matthews is that only one of them believes that it’s important to act like a grown up.
Yet, how could the electorate so decisively and overwhelmingly reject the Left’s benevolent agenda? George Soros’s minions at Media Matters For America repeated the only explanation that they are capable of providing: it’s all Fox News’s fault. Blaring the headline “Fox Wins!” the day after the election, MMFA’s “fellows” stuck to the playbook: Americans are incapable of thinking for themselves and, but for the nefarious influence of the maverick Fox network, would have readily embraced all of the wonderful things that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have done to make this nation so much better.
Other progressives placed the blame squarely at the feet of their favorite party, saying that Democrats had been defeated because they didn’t give the nation nearly enough of the far-left policies that America so yearns for. Interviewed by O’Donnell, neo-socialist faux-umentary film maker Michael Moore said that Democrats needed to stick with “the base” in order to be successful. The “base” in Moore’s alternate universe, in fact, consists of the poor segments of society who are entirely dependent on government munificence and the rich liberal elite who can afford to ignore the excesses of Big Government. Naturally, voters in districts dominated by one of these categories dutifully elected the leftist-sanctioned candidate. This is proof to uber-leftists like Moore that the progressive message has traction. Moving toward the center, on the other hand, is electoral suicide. Almost half of the “Blue Dog” Democrats lost, after all. Isn’t that proof that the Dems need to swing even further toward the left?
Actually, it’s not. The reason that so many Blue Dogs lost isn’t because they weren’t far enough to the Left; it’s because: 1) they held office in areas that are much more centrist than traditional leftist bastions, and 2) the fact that they were otherwise more centrist than their party was more than outweighed by the neo-socialist policies that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid championed.
The real “base” of the Democratic Party is in fact rather small. Its key components consist of the very poor, union members, government employees, educators, and the ultra-rich liberal elite. In each case, the party’s key supporters believe that government should be responsible to either take care of them, or to ensure that everyone is taken care of. Government simply doesn’t have the resources to accomplish that mission, no matter what progressives might wish to believe. The lesson that the far Left has taken from this election is that Big Government can indeed achieve such noble ends and that the entire free-market system that America was built upon should be sacrificed to achieve that goal. The 2010 election shows that America has indisputably rejected that kind of thinking, but the left hasn’t yet come to grips with even the slightest possibility that is true.
Pages: 1 2