My question: from what, to what?
The Democrats lost election after election after election last cycle, and most analysts agree that it was because they were complacent. And because they lacked any coherent vision. And because they had no message, no meaning, no direction, no vision. Their entire strategy consisted of trying to put together enough people who are either dependent on the government, or chock full of some, generally fabricated, grievance or other. Oh, and hyper-arrogantly deriding the Republican nominee for President, along with anyone who supported him.
The Democrats depended on the Grievance Groups coming through for them. The problem with that is: these groups don’t owe you anything unless you give them something. Even then, their allegiance is weak and shallow. The only way to get them out in any real numbers consistently is if they think someone might come along and try to take away their freebies.
The Democrats have chosen that strategy because they believe in only one thing: having power. And if they’re able to bribe, lie to or dupe 51% of the population convincingly enough, then that 51% will give them power.
This strategy actually spares the Democrats from the onerous responsibility of making an effort to think of something that might provide an actually valid reason for them to hold power, then convincing 51% that their vision is right. The Democrats, and the larger Left, haven’t engaged in any original thinking for many generations.
Go ahead… pick an issue. Any issue. When was the last time they surprised you on which side they took? When was the last time there was any nuance in their position? Run down the list:
- Abortion? Always just fine. All abortion is always fine.
- Welfare? Food Stamps? The more the merrier. Always.
- Defense? Less is always better.
- Muscular Foreign Policy? No. Never.
- Taxes? Always, always, always harp on making the rich pay ever more.
- Economics in General? Always, always, always come down on any question, on the side that engages in more re-distribution.
- Environmentalism? Whatever allows the government to take more control over the people’s lives is always the side they take. Always.
You and I both could have predicted each and every position they’d take in each and every issue that ever arose, before it arose… even the legitimate ones.
Here are some up-and-coming issues, and let’s see whether you can predict how the Dems and the Left will swing:
- Euthanasia? My prediction is based on some knowledge that I have already: they’ll decide that it’s always okay to kill the person… errrmmm to “help” the person die.
- “Post-birth abortion?” It’s a horror. A ghoulish nightmare concept… abd it’s big in Europe now, and it’s coming here. And, you guessed it, for this “issue” the Dems will come down on the side that leaves the baby — before or after birth — dead.
Back to re-branding: You might think that if you don’t believe in anything, then you can re-brand yourself any ol’ way you choose. Not really. The Democrats are in a ticklish situation. If they pick a side that favors yet another whining grievance group, but that also disfavors, or appears to disfavor, another of the groups they currently bribe, then they could lose vital support.
Nowadays, though, there are so many internal contradictions in the Left that just about any position they take, gives a freebie to someone, while taking one from someone else. The good news is that the Democrats might just have maxed out on their ability to bribe grievance groups. At this point, they might not be able to add a grievance group to their plantation, without also losing one.
The Democrats don’t need to re-brand, they need to go away and come back when they’ve (1) grown up, and (2) stopped being a crime syndicate masquerading as a political party.