Friday, May 04, 2012

The Great Divider

Charles Krauthammer accurately describes how Obama's style of governing is to use government spending and policy to pander to one of the demographic groups that supported him in 2008. It doesn't matter if his policy actions are going to have deleterious effects or if he's proposing something futile that will never pass Congress. All that matters is if he can introduce a wedge issue to beat up Republicans so that he will have more slogans for the campaign trail.

For example, that is the only reason why his Justice Department is challenging the Arizona immigration law.
The law allows police to check the immigration status of someone stopped for other reasons. Verrilli claimed that constitutes an intrusion on the federal monopoly on immigration enforcement. He was pummeled. Why shouldn’t a state help the federal government enforce the law? “You can see it’s not selling very well,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Verrilli never had a chance. This was never a serious legal challenge in the first place. It was confected (and timed) purely for political effect, to highlight immigration as a campaign issue with which to portray Republicans as anti-Hispanic.

Hispanics, however, are just the beginning. The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.

Why else would the Justice Department challenge the photo ID law in Texas? To charge Republicans with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar law from Indiana. And it wasn’t close: 6 to 3, the majority including the venerated liberal John Paul Stevens.

Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can’t get into the attorney general’s building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?

The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the “war on women.” It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as co-insured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.

Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen’s hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.

No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show “Buffett rule,” nicely pitting the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.

Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54 percent of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed.

How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan’s budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.)

Then warn that Republicans would double the interest rate on student loans. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as The Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006, when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50 percent rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy.

For Obama, what’s not to like? More beneficiaries, more votes.
He can't run on being the man who sprang to America's attention at the 2004 Democratic convention talking about there not being a red America or a blue America, but the United States of America. In 2008 he could run as the great uniter. Now, after being in office for over three years, he doesn't have policy successes that appeal to voters so the only strategy he has left is to run as the Great Divider.

4 comments:

mark said...

According to Krauthammer, Hilary Rosen's dumb comments about Ann Romney constitute a "war on moms". And this after she apologized twice and just about every dem or liberal distanced themselves from the comments.
So much for the fake outcry about the "war on women". Then again, honesty was never Krauthammer's strong suit.

pumping-irony said...

Hmmm, yeah, Krauthammer still hammerin' on crap that's weeks old... Never been any precedent for that sorta thing....

Hey, didja hear, Bin Laden's STILL DEAD!!!!

mark said...

Yes, PI, I did hear that. Thank you, President Obama.

equitus said...

Nice day for kool-aid, mark, isn't it?