As I watch President Obama and his minions mercilessly tout his genius and bravery as a “War President,” presumably to attract “swing” voters, my only consolation is that I can now delete his incessant money-grubbing emails without a trace of guilt. Actually, it’s become a pleasure to do so, and it saves money, too. Never mind the creepy grave-dancing involved; the most galling part is how easily he slipped into this role, even resorting to tinny Bushisms about Bin Laden being “brought to justice.”
What’s next, “dead or alive?” Oops, never mind. Obama’s unseemly embrace of Bush’s ridiculous “War on Terror” has gone from mild flirtation to Roman orgy in just three short years, and I shudder to think of the long-term consequences. Because these things work like a ratchet; every time a Democratic President give the righties an inch, they take a mile, and come up with something more outright fascist to demand next time. With Obama, they get a mile up front, and then demand a light year five minutes later.
I no longer care to speculate whether Obama recognizes this; not being a drooling nitwit, he surely does by this point. He caved in on FISA, and now the Republicans want to tap everyone’s data, all the time. He gave up on EFCA, and now Republicans insist all unions must be hounded out of existence. He coddled and covered for BP after the Horizon disaster, and now Republicans bleat that he’s hamstringing oil development. He summarily executed Bin Laden, and now Republicans are demanding scalps from Iran and Syria to China and North Korea.
Meanwhile, these serial capitulations are treated in Serious circle-jerks as wise and timely nods to “swing voters.” What, pray tell, are they swinging from, the chandeliers or the trees? Who are these people, and why must only Democrats bother appealing to them? Right-leaning swing voters are thought to care about the deficit, but their candidates merely offer budget-busting tax giveaways to the wealthy, and call it a day. They are thought to be uncomfortable with abortion on demand, but their candidates respond by seeking to ban birth control and sex education. The list goes on.
Democrats in general and Obama in particular take an entirely different and inherently infuriating approach. Their swing voters are thought to care about the deficit, so Democrats offer to slash Social Security and Medicare while holding the wealthy harmless. They’re thought to be skeptical of foreign intervention, so Democrats offer them death by drone instead. They are thought to care about the environment, so Democrats decide to “study” the latest death-dealing toxic endeavor before approving it anyway. See a pattern?
The presence (which I’m convinced is largely fictional) of “swing” voters is just the latest excuse for Democrats to be just as big of corrupt sellouts as the Republicans, only (until now, anyway) slightly less blusteringly proud about it. Surely that explains why Bill Clinton has suddenly jumped on board with both expensively clad feet. At one point in 2007, Slick Willie might have actually though Obama might be some sort of liberal boat-rocker; any such fears are now well and truly assuaged, as the banksters, war profiteers, and every other criminal one percenter has been brought comfortably into the fold.
For Democrats, the base is treated as an annoyance which can be safely ignored in order to win elections with uninformed, vacillating “swing” voters. For Republicans, the base, no matter how lunatic, writes the platform, swing voters be damned. Which approach is working best?