Have you noticed something? When was the last time the topic du jour in the media was a substantive issue?
When Obama offered his budget?
When he gave his state of the union?
Is it a coincidence that Obama’s campaign doesn’t plan on using substantive issues to tackle the Mitt Romney challenge, but rather divisive rhetoric and ideological debate?
It’s interesting, then, to see Mediaite – a website I use often to link on this site, but has a decidedly liberal editorial staff – criticize MSNBC and other liberal pundits for failing to address the growing ideological divide among Democrats.
The article was based on a remark made by S.E. Cupp, a prominent female conservative writer for the New York Daily News.
Mediate Noah Rothman cites examples of the moderate losses the Democrat party has sustained and the potential reasons for it. His summation though, points out an interesting paradigm.
It says quite a lot about the state of Democratic commentary that it is heretical to admit that the actions of the 111th Congress and the Democratic president fostered the present conservative iteration of the Republican party. By not admitting that fairly demonstrable fact, the liberal commentariat will not be able to learn from history and receive the catharsis that comes from such an admission of fault.
His point, more or less, is that the Democrat move to the left, particularly thanks to ultra-liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, is a major contributing factor to the Tea Party movement and a changing of the Republican guard.
CNN had an interesting editorial today from historian Julian Zeitler that pitted Obama and Romney as two pragmatic problem-solvers rather than ideologues.
While I disagree, to some extent, with the premise that President Obama hasn’t been a staunch ultra-liberal, he has been willing to compromise with Republicans on things like deficit reduction.
In some ways, Mitt Romney is an excellent counter-argument that the Republican party has been the driver of political polarization in the country, as the MSNBC pundits suggest.
I want to point out something that’s important here. Politicians are elected. That means people have to vote.
It’s why we have the best system on earth.
So when the liberal ideologies of President Obama failed, there were sweeping changes in 2010 because the people asked for them. It’s nothing more than sour grapes for liberals to suggest some of this is political ideology run amok.
We live in a center-right country, a nation of people who, outside of the political elites, are more conservative than they are liberal.
In 2008, just 38% of people believed the Democrat party was “too liberal.” By 2010, it was up to 49%. The major change? Our president.
Furthermore, no president in modern history has done more to perpetuate the divide between Republicans and Democrats than our current and soon-to-be-former president.
Every failure has been the Tea Party’s fault and every success has been solely by the hands of Obama and his social-engineering agenda.
There can be no debate that the Tea Party’s rise was a result of the leftist policies of President Obama and his liberal Congress.
The Tea Party’s driving message has been the antithesis of the tax and spending, big-government liberal mythology driving the Democrat party since 2008.
Tea Party members and Republican activist legislators have become rockstars in Congress because people support them. That’s the way Democracy works.
I wouldn’t expect a liberal to understand.