Who votes for the Democrats, and what impact does it have on Republican strategy?

The diagram that we all learn in Political Science 101 for the "political spectrum" in America goes something like this:

<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican

Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!

However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.

In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:

1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.

Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.

2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.

Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.

3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.

So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)

The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.

Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.

4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.

Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.

***********************

Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.

When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.

Who amongst us has never wanted to fling poo at his enemies?

Interesting article from January 10th, on Tech Central Station, written by Lee Harris.

Mr. Harris does an excellent job posing an important question: Why have other scientific revolutions that challenged some point of religion been accepted everywhere outside of the Flat Earth Society within a short time period, while evolution has not?

Mr. Harris comes to the conclusion that a visceral dislike for monkeys is to blame for the rejection of evolution, and that this visceral dislike stems from the revelation that they are very much like we would be if we were stripped of civilization. As Mr. Harris puts it:

"... the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

... It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey—this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems."

I have to hand it to him, Mr. Harris makes an excellent point. Apes are a reminder that, while we are we are capable of much more than they ever will be, we are capable of reverting as well.

Unfortunately, there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated to eliminating the consequences of behaving like monkeys. We call it liberalism.

Consider the number of conservative speakers on college campuses who have had food hurled at them by angry liberals. Food is only a brief passage through the digestive tract away from fecal matter, and no different in its message when hurled. Like with monkeys, food throwers are motivated by an emotional instinct to lash-out, not by a rational desire to disprove the speaker's arguments by means of a witty torte. The most disturbing aspect of this is not the pie-throwing, but the fact that Liberal prosecutors in most of these towns dropped the charges against the assailants.

We could also talk about sex, since the Liberals do so frequently. Medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic suggest beginning to teach kids about sex when they are toddlers or preschoolers. Barack Obama stresses the need for age-appropriate Sex Ed for kindergarteners. Exactly what qualifies as "age-appropriate" for a five year-old is hard for me to understand, and apparently Barack had some trouble, as well, since he has refused to elaborate beyond the need for "study." Perhaps he meant discussions of anal sex, oral sex and "fisting" (I will let you figure it out from the context...) like these Massachusetts activists did. Maybe he thought we should teach kindergarteners about masturbation, like Jocelyn Elders? Doubtless, he meant more along the lines of this precious (but poorly transferred and edited,) moment from Kindergarten Cop.

Sex Ed trains children to avoid the consequences of sex, without ever asking whether they should be having it in the first place. Putting a condom on a banana is a time-honored tradition of the Sex Ed teacher. Thus fortified, the banana can engage in all of the casual sex it wants without any trouble! But of course, there are those times when a condom breaks, so the Libs advocate passing out birth-control to 11 year-olds. If a girl as young as ten years-old still manages to get pregnant, the U.N. seems to think it is time to head to the Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion. (Remember: It's not a potential new life you have created. It's a non-viable tissue mass, like cancer!) If our hypothetical ten year-old mother decides to keep the baby, the government has over 900 programs to keep her comfortable.

Kids are exposed to sex on a daily basis on TV and in the movies, and much of this sex is casual and meaningless. This constant exposure has the effect of creating a patina of social legitimacy. Combined with the easy availability of birth control and abortion, does anybody wonder we see as many kids mounting every cute behind they see?

We could talk about the massive failure of our public schools to teach children trained in basic history, math and science, leaving a generation of children incapable of applying rational thought to a problem. We could talk about the interest-group politics that seem to define the Left in America that sounds more like tribalism than civil rights. We could talk about the juvenile justice system, and how it treats criminal miscreants below the age of eighteen as gently as possible, and in doing so, never teaches these kids that there are consequences for breaking the law. Liberalism seems designed to produce a generation of children that have no idea that they are not supposed to fling food or feces at people they do not like. It is designed to produce a generation of kids who have such freedom from moral restraints on sex and the capability to avoid its consequences that they will hop on whatever willing behind they find. It is designed to produce an ignorant bunch of dolts who cannot even recognize a specious argument, or separate emotion from fact. It is designed to produce monkeys.