Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • We wuz robbed!

    Posted by Steven Den Beste on November 11th, 2006 (All posts by )

    2000, Democrats: "We wuz robbed!"
    2002, Democrats: "We wuz robbed again!"
    2004, Democrats: "We wuz robbed yet again!"
    2006, Republicans: "Bummer. Oh, well, we’ll do better next time."

    Note that right-wing pundits and bloggers don’t seem to be fixating on voter
    fraud, despite

    documented evidence
    that the Democrats have been doing that kind of thing?
    Note that Republican candidates who lost very narrowly gave in gracefully,
    without demanding recounts or resorting to the courts? Why the difference?

    I think it’s the basic Democrat culture of entitlement showing through.
    Democrats were angry in 2000, 2002, and 2004 because they felt that they
    to win. Republicans don’t feel that anyone deserves anything. They
    believe that all rewards have to be earned.

    There’s another way of looking at this. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, Democrats
    explained their defeat by looking to see what the Republicans had done to
    inflict defeat on the Democrats. In 2006, the Republicans seem to be explaining
    their defeat by
    for all the ways
    they themselves loused up. The Democrats are showing their
    investment in the cult of the victim. They didn’t lose because of any fault or
    failure of their own; they lost because of the nefarious acts of villainous

    It’s another manifestation of their epistemological breakdown regarding the
    principle of cause-and-effect. The Democrats do not fundamentally believe that
    they are in control of their own fate — or ours. They were victims in 2000,
    2002, and 2004. The only reason they weren’t victims in 2006 was that the
    nefarious Republicans didn’t successfully pull off their nefarious plots and
    plans this time. And in general Democrats demonstrate a broad belief that
    there’s no relationship between acts and results, cause and effect. What matters
    is motive, not behavior. If you do something with good intentions,
    the result will be good.

    And never mind what road is paved with good intentions. They don’t believe in
    Hell, either.

    Raising taxes won’t result in decreased economic growth. There’s no
    relationship between the two. What Congress does about taxes won’t have any
    effect on the economy, so why not raise taxes so there’s more government
    money to spread around to those who deserve to receive it?

    Why shouldn’t we decrease defense spending in the middle of a war?
    Increased defense spending causes war, it isn’t a response to it. If
    we stop fighting, the war will end. If we reduce our defense spending, we’ll be
    safer. Anyway, the UN will protect us.

    Bailing out of Iraq won’t result in increased radicalism in the Middle
    East. (Though we’re told that invading the place did result in increased
    radicalism.) "Redeploying" won’t convince the radicals that we’re cowards
    who have no staying power and can be worn down in a long fight. It won’t
    convince the radicals that they can attack us with impunity and that the price
    of doing so won’t be catastrophe for them.

    Bypassing the electoral process and using the courts to implement their
    radical agenda (e.g. legalization of gay marriage) won’t cause backlash
    among the electorate and widespread passage of one-man-one-woman marriage laws.

    Restricting the use of fossil fuels won’t cause the economy to
    collapse. Energy doesn’t come from coal and oil, it comes from service stations
    and light sockets in the wall.

    If cause-and-effect don’t actually have anything to do with one another, and
    if good things happen to good people because they deserve to get good
    results, then all those ideas make perfect sense. We should live good lives, and
    treat others (e.g. al Qaeda) kindly, and if we do then everything will get
    better. The bad things that have happened to us (e.g. the 9/11 attack) are our
    own fault because we act in evil ways, and thus don’t deserve good results. Our
    lives will become more comfortable and better and safer in every way because
    we’ll be virtuous, and thus will deserve it.

    Fortunately, there’s another election in 2008. Two years is long enough for
    the Democrats to show their true colors, but not long enough for them to louse
    things up beyond repair. For six years the Democrats in Congress have done
    nothing but complain about nearly everything the Republicans have done, without
    ever offering any alternative plans. Now the Democrats are in charge, and will
    have to act instead of spending all their time bitching. (Best guess is
    that they’ll switch to spending all their time spending.)

    It’s definitely going to be amusing to watch them try to lead and to see what
    direction they think they’ll lead us. I think the result is going to be a
    shambles, leading to a massive reversal in 2008. (Especially if the Republican
    message in 2008 is, "We’ve learned our lesson, and we’ll do better next time.")


    7 Responses to “We wuz robbed!”

    1. Ginny Says:

      George Allen showed grace. A bright spot might be that so did his opponent. The fact that Webb’s democratic audience didn’t know how to act when presented with grace reinforces Steven’s point.

      One might think the party that engineered poll taxes in the nineteenth century & the Illinois vote for Kennedy in the twentieth would feel shame. If we consider democracy important, we don’t undermine it – either by buying votes or questioning clearly fair elections.

      Thanks, Steven. I’ve never understood the Democrat’s obsession with stolen votes – linking it with a sense of entitlement finally makes sense of what seemed bizarre projection.

    2. PoliticalCritic Says:

      None of the races were all that close this year to claim robbery. The only one that even qualified for a recount was VA and that was a 7,000 vote difference.

    3. Mike Says:

      Very interesting commentary,the democrats as victims.It matches their platform.
      Glad to see you posting Steven,I’ve always enjoyed reading your thoughts.

    4. Big Nose Says:

      The main difference is that the left / Democratics view themselves as victims, And like a good victim they are always casting around for an excuse. The have a losers mindset.

    5. MJS Says:

      Here’s to hoping you’re right about the next two years. As always, great insight, Steven!

    6. Dave Says:

      It seems to me that one of the biggest differences was in how enthusiastic each sides base was. When you are torn between staying home on election day, and going and voting for someone your not really happy with, I guess its hard to get too worked up when your guy doesn’t win.

    7. MD Says:

      Okay, that was cute :) I’ve been impressed with the matter of fact way a lot of the right of center blogs I read have dealt with the defeat: A what do we do now approach.

      *As an aside, it’s interesting to see this spun as an across the board anti-Iraq war vote in some circles when it seems more complicated than that. Do you think the independents changed their minds, while the base was discouraged about spending and immigration, all the while gambling on Bush being around to prevent any precipitious withdrawal?