Emotions

One meme I’ve been hearing lately that’s driving me crazy goes like so:

“Democrats are too intellectual. They’re too focused on the details of policy. They need to make more emotional appeals to people!”

In fact, there’s now a best-selling book on this subject.

It’s utter crap.

Every election cycle, seniors are told Republicans are going to “gut” Social Security and Medicare. When the GOP took Congress in 1994, we were told they were going to pollute the air, dirty the water and cancel school lunches. Dick Gebhardt specifically appeared in a school to respond to Newt’s address and said that Republican had voted to cut school lunches (they hadn’t). In 2000, a commercial implied that if Bush was elected, blacks would be dragged to death in hate crimes.

Yep, cool rational consideration.

An enormous amount of Democrat rhetoric is about the rich “paying their fair share”. Their reponse to ending the Estate Tax is to lament “a tax cut for Paris Hilton”. Fight against imminent domain abuses have run into the claim that this is to “benefit the rich.”

Boy, so cerebral. I feel like I’m reading Tolstoy!

In 1988, the Dems told us we were “a pink slip away from being homeless” (this was before we discovered that rational, number-crunching Democrats had over-estimated homelessness by a small factor of 400%). In 1992, we were told we were a pink slip away from losing our healthcare. In 2004, we were an election away from our jobs going to India.

Uh-huh. Boy, what boring numbers fanatics. It’s like listening to philosophy professors debate.

Was it cold reason when the Democrats told us that 2004 was the most critical election in American History – that our very lives were at stake? (Personally, I might say 1864 was more important. Or 1800. Or 1796. Or 1940. Or 1968. Or 1980. Or…)

Is it mind-numbing number-crunching that makes them rally behind the WHO’s bullshit numbers?

And I’m sure they seek endorsements from Hollywood celebrities because of the immense intellectual prowess of these people.

In fact, the biggest problem with getting global warming taken seriously is the use of bogus, hysterical claims designed to frighten people into thinking The Day After Tomorrow is a serious insight into our future.

Let’s just look at macro-economic issues. Here are some reasonable things that Democrats dispute. These are things that almost all economists will agree on:

  • Raising the minimum wage cuts low-income jobs.
  • Fixing prices creates scarcity.
  • Free trade benefits everyone.
  • The trade deficit is nothing to worry about.
  • And yet, not only to the Democrats dispute these things, they do so for irrational reasons, with their rhetoric on the issues being:

  • George Bush hates poor people.
  • George Bush is letting the oil companies rob us.
  • George Bush is sending our jobs to Mexico.
  • Our economy is being destroyed by George Bush.
  • And that brings me to my final point. Since December of 2000, the reasonable, rational cerebral Democratic party has been consumed with hatred of George W. Bush. No matter what he does, it’s wrong. Even if it’s an education bill Ted Kennedy wrote and the greatest expansion of socialized medicine in 40 years, it’s wrong and evil.

    Party of Reason? Give me break. The last reasonable Democrat was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    Yes, the GOP appeals to emotions a lot of times — unfortunately a lot more often with the twerps we have in charge now. But just because one side uses emotions does not mean the other side uses logic and reason.

    The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. And opposing irrational people does not make you rational.

    Comments are closed.