We can even turn this into a game, which you can play along with at home. Grab a piece of paper, a pencil, and for each of the following items decide whether you think our political opponents were being “smart” or “stupid.”
I’ll include a point-system for each one, so at the end you can determine your rank according to “Benzion’s Completely Objective and Non-Sarcastic Scale of Political Stupidity.”
Ready? Let’s begin!
ITEM ONE
In 2006 and then 2008, House Democrats under the leadership of Rahm Emmanuel made a conscious decision to aggressively recruit and actively support moderate and even conservative-leaning candidates in swing districts then held by Republicans. In doing so, it was necessary for the party to welcome, endorse, promote, spend money on, devote resources to, and publicly associate with candidates who were much more moderate than the Democrat’s liberal base.
- If you think this tactic was “smart,” since it provided the necessary margin to wrest power away from the GOP, halting any hope of conservative legislation during the twilight of the Bush administration while setting the stage for a mind-boggling expansion of government as soon as the White House was captured by a Democrat as well, subtract one point.
- If you think this tactic was “stupid,” since tolerating (let alone welcoming and supporting) moderates who don’t agree with you 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time simply because they can win and hand you the reigns of power is dishonorable and insufferably shameful, go ahead and add one point.
ITEM TWO
Independents have proven to be the decisive block of voters in the past three election cycles. While campaigning in 2006 and 2008, Democrats took great pains to carefully calibrate their messaging and agenda to appeal to these voters in the “critical middle.”
- If you think this approach is “smart,” since winning elections (and thus actually exercising power) requires attracting the backing of large groups of people who aren’t as informed, engaged or ideologically pure as your hardcore base of support, subtract one point.
- If you think this approach is “stupid,” since it is better to remain unsullied by compromise and accommodation to political reality, rather than actually govern and make progress on your agenda if that means pandering to the unprincipled idiocies of anyone who disagrees with you, add one point.
ITEM THREE
After securing robust victories in 2008, Democrats and liberals immediately neglected the priorities of the moderates and Independents whose backing had been decisive to their ascendancy. Instead of patiently advancing their agenda via a series of modest and incremental steps, they put an immediate and unwavering focus on pushing a legislative agenda—by any means necessary—most attractive to their ideological base.
- If you think this decision was “stupid,” since maintaining newly-acquired power requires addressing the concerns of all the voting blocs in your coalition—especially those that make-or-break a winning campaign, are least-likely to stick with you for ideological or partisan reasons, and are most-likely to be repulsed by political games—subtract one point.
- If you think this decision was “smart,” since the immediate-gratification of wielding raw power feels awesome, and the morons in the “mushy middle” you had to pander to during the campaign will inevitably recognize the brilliance of your beliefs, and probably even increase their support if you just shove what you want down their throats for their own good, add one point.
ITEM FOUR
Many observers have noted that during his first two years in office, President Obama deferred the nuts-and-bolts of crafting legislation to hyper-partisan and politically-polarizing members of Congress, who themselves were uniquely attentive to the desires (and sensitive to the pressures of) outside interest groups on the hard-Left.
- If you think this was a “smart” approach, because movement-activists can be trusted to maintain an accurate pulse on the sentiments of the overall electorate, while responsibly balancing their legislative desires with a realistic assessment of what is politically possible and prudent, add one point.
- If you think this was a “stupid” approach, because professional ideologues are by definition completely convinced they are 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} right, associate almost exclusively with people who basically share their views, and face overwhelming intellectual, financial and personal incentives to justify their agenda while ignoring nuance, subtract one point.
ITEM FIVE
On issues as wide-ranging as healthcare reform, carbon emissions cap-and-trade and stimulus/deficit spending, Obama, Reid and Pelosi repeatedly forced members of their party from “swing” districts to make difficult party-line votes that were extremely unpopular back home, and would provide damaging campaign-fodder for Republican challengers in 2010.
- If you think this was “stupid” politics, often failing to actually accomplish anything legislatively and extracting a terrible price politically even when they got what they wanted, subtract one point.
- If you think this was “smart” politics, because party-discipline is more important than electoral viability, and besides, what voters really want are leaders with the courage of their convictions, even if they don’t actually share those convictions in the same way or to the same degree, add one point.
ITEM SIX
Despite unprecedented protests at town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, Chris Christie’s gubernatorial-win in New Jersey (the first statewide GOP victory there in 12 years), and Scott Brown’s ascension in Massa-freaking-chusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, Democratic leaders first ignored and then dismissed opposition to their agenda as either inconsequential or a simple “communication” problem.
- If you think that attitude towards political opposition is “smart,” since simply holding power is evidence of broad public agreement with your views, and any dissent can be massaged away through money and messaging once the next campaign rolls around, add one point.
- If you think that type of approach to political opposition is “stupid,” since the public won’t suffer an out-of-touch political class forever, and you probably aren’t as clever as you think, subtract one point.
ITEM SEVEN
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that, in the aftermath of the Democrats November 3rd shellacking, “Liberal activists say the Democrats’ poor showing stems from compromises made by party leaders on health care, gay rights and other issues.”
- Add one point if you think this is a “smart” analysis, because getting rejected by the electorate has little relation to what you believe or have actually been doing, and in fact the best way to win-back voters is to keep offering the same thing they’ve already rejected, just louder and more insistently.
- Subtract one point if you think this is a “stupid” analysis, because the key to regaining voters’ trust and returning to power is to demonstrate you’ve genuinely listened to their rebuke and are prepared to do things differently, even if that’s difficult for your party or grassroots base.
ITEM EIGHT
As of this writing, congressional Democrats intend to keep both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in leadership positions, as the public face and guiding lights of their party.
- This is “smart,” because the clearest path to victory is rallying around highly-polarizing political figures that you happen to love, even if a solid majority of the public has had a chance to evaluate them and decided they don’t like what they see. Give it time; eventually voters will realize they are stupid and accept they are wrong. Add one point.
- This is “stupid,” because… jeez, because it is simply too stupid for me to try to precisely articulate all of the different ways it is stupid. Subtract one point.
ITEM NINE
Finally…
- … if you think your political opponents are so incompetent, ignorant, despicable, and corrupt that the public will never again vote for them, no matter how badly you behave and grossly neglect the concerns of a broad spectrum of key voting blocs, add one point.
- … if you think voters will gladly support your political opponents, despite all their evident flaws, when they’ve finally had enough of your crap and decide to give you a well-deserved beating, subtract one point.
CONCLUSION
Alright, time to tally up your scores and find out where you fall on “Benzion’s Completely Objective and Non-Sarcastic Scale of Political Stupidity.”
Minus 9 to Minus 4
Greetings, scum-sucking RINO!
How does it feel to simultaneously be hated by every member of the U.S. armed forces, the Founding Fathers, and God Himself? Enjoy those Manhattan cocktail parties with truffle and arugula hors d’oeuvres served in the shape of aborted fetuses while you can.
When you die—hopefully soon—the last thing you’ll feel before going straight to Hell is the ghost of Ronald Reagan sticking his cowboy boot up your ass. Be sure to say “hola” to all those illegal immigrants who had the temerity to rebel against their divinely-ordained lives of starvation, squalor and violence.
The world, and especially the Republican Party, is better off without you.
Minus 3 to Plus 3
While the situation isn’t entirely hopeless, your commitment to rock-ribbed conservatism is seriously deficient.
Immediately stop consuming news or information from any source that doesn’t conform to the ideological assumptions you already hold—these can only confuse you.
Give serious consideration to ending all work, neighborhood, religious, social or family relationships with individuals who don’t share your beliefs, unless of course you use these interactions as opportunities to explain to others exactly how they are stupid and wrong.
Your good intentions an consistent support for Republican candidates aren’t enough. Accept the authority of those more principled and honorable than you, and you may one day earn your way off RINO-probation.
Plus 4 to Plus 8
Congratulations fellow Patriot!
Given your savvy political instincts, empathy with the perspective of others, deep appreciation of the existence of reality and impressive ability to persuade those who don’t already agree with you, the triumph of conservative values and policies will be secured for generations, as soon as so many of our fellow citizens stop being so inexplicably ignorant, foolish, weak-willed and wrong.
If you aren’t already the head of a generically-named activist group dedicated to achieving the same goals as numerous other generically-named activist groups, drop whatever you are doing RIGHT NOW and form your own. This is the one thing that has been lacking up until this point.
At a minimum, alert everyone you possibly can to their many errors. Blog comments and scratchy cell-phone calls to local talk-radio stations are a key channel for the distribution of your brilliance. Quoting, paraphrasing, or just randomly attributing your thoughts to a figure from ancient Rome is a sure-fire way to immediately establish credibility.
Explore a run for public office yourself. Unlike every other human being who has ever served in government, you are uniquely capable of discerning Truth while remaining uncorrupted by perks, lobbyists, conflicting facts, dissenting opinions, limited options, and the practical need to actually govern.
Even while unelected, nothing prevents you from serving as a self-appointed arbiter of the actions, thoughts, opinions, positions, candidates, strategies and messages that are or are not permissible among those nominally committed to your same goals.
Enforce your views with vigor! The fate of your family, neighborhood, Key Map code, municipality, county, state, nation, continent, hemisphere, planet, solar system and galaxy—indeed, the entire universe—literally depends on it.
Oh, and if you should ever need any more help or guidance, just turn and look to the example of your political soul-mates—Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, labor union bosses, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.
David Benzion is a strategic research and communications professional with extensive experience providing polling, focus-group and opposition-research services to Republican candidates in senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial and state-house campaigns, as well as for ballot initiative committees, corporate, trade association and public affairs clients.
As founding editor and publisher of LoneStarTimes.com, for five years Benzion led a group blog whose conservative Texas perspective on politics, pop-culture and current events was cited by the Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Governing Magazine, The Hotline and Associated Press. He is a former executive producer and host with Houston talk-radio station AM 700 KSEV, where he remains a substitute host.
Opinions expressed by Benzion are his alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of his former, current or future employers or clients.