Back To "The Idiot" Strategy

This morning, the first reference yours truly heard to last night’s debate was a Classic FM newsreader, just after 7 AM:

“Sarah Palin has surprised critics by putting on a strong performance in last’s night’s only vice presidential debate…”

Yes apparently it was a big surprise. For most of major media’s expectation beforehand was that Alaska’s governor and the Republican vice presidential nominee was bound to fall on her face before a global TV audience. But as Pajamas Media’s Jennifer Rubin tells us:

…those planning the McCain campaign funeral will have to put their plans on hold. For a campaign badly in need of a jump start they got one. In a big way. The MSM couldn’t have played their part better — beating her down, lowering expectations, and then seeing each of the tags (e.g., unsophisticated, ill-informed, clueless) upended one by one…

One suspects that “strong performance” will not be long be recalled. In fact, it is problematic that it will change one hardened (so-called) liberal mind. If indeed any at all are even willing to acknowledge generously — even if one doesn’t agree with her life outlook — that she is perhaps NOT an “idiot.”

Why? This blog has witnessed the mentality time and again. And as a pre-September 11, 2001 Democrat who had stupidly indulged in this same personal past-time himself (particularly during the 2000 election, he admits), allow yours truly to offer a brief explanation.

Unless they go through “rehab,” as yours truly did — meaning, in short, until they grasp the realization that to be a “non-international” American who attends church regularly does not automatically mark one out as a bigoted nitwit — liberals cannot help themselves. Upon what they believe to be the high-horse is where they are most comfortable. They simply cannot imagine that they are NOT absolutely more sharp-minded and heavyweight than their opponents.

The major reason for that self-delusion? Since the mid-1960s, Democrats have actually come to believe — honestly — their own puffed up view of themselves as the default party of “great thoughts“:

“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” John F. Kennedy’s April 29, 1962 dinner honoring 49 Nobel Laureates…

That is a classic witticism with which even conservatives might agree. But the Democratic party has changed: it is no longer the party of FDR and Truman. For the last 45 years it has become instead the party of JFK idolatry and imagined “Camelot.” Reared on an endless diet of “Jack and Jackie in Paris” (yours truly has been to that city many times: yes it has its magnificence like any similar city, but underneath the gloss it is a troubled city like any other, not a film), and so much more, many to most Democrats sincerely now appear to believe that to be a Republican is . . . to be a moron.

Or, more to the point currently, a moose hunter who speaks in (of course imagined) tongues. We know already that heaven forbid a single “news” provider so much as appear to move off the “intellectual reservation.” Moreover, it is now clear that media opinion, being decided “liberal” and springing from much the same “great thoughts” base as the Democratic party, has appointed itself uncoverer of Republican imbecility at every possible turn.

Which is also why, thanks to that media, we will likely never discover which are Senators Obama and Biden’s favorite Bushrod Washington legal opinions. Nor will we benefit from their sharing with us the names of every vice president between Schuyler Colfax and John Nance Garner. And sadly, we will probably not find out pre-November 4 how they plan to work closely with the newly prominent Finnish Secretary of State. (“And before you answer, no, Senator, not the Foreign Minister. What’s her name again? And after pronouncing it clearly, please, for the benefit of our audience, spell it?”)

Unlike that same media’s microscopic interest in Gov Palin’s takes on similar, that is. And thus Ms Rubin’s description of Sen Biden’s demeanor (on after 2 AM here, yours truly has not seen the debate yet: it is on “Sky-Plus” and will be watched later), which, all told, seems disturbingly familiar:

…he alternately smirked and grimaced. In general, he seemed peeved and annoyed…

That sounds like about what one would have expected. Although as a candidate Sen Biden could not go quite as far as liberal pundits and likely even your very liberal friend at work or school. He had to try to control himself, whereas, when dealing with what might be considered opposing conservative opinions, liberals are often quick to lose perspective, react emotionally and all too often embrace outright intellectual snobbery.

And as to that latter mostly with so little justification, since few Democrats are themselves actually anywhere approaching nearly as smart as they perceive themselves to be. Essentially, if a conservative (meaning here a Republican) disagrees with you, generally he will try to overwhelm you with facts that he claims support his view of your ignorance. In contrast, a liberal (meaning a Democrat), when confronted with your opposition, might try that for a moment, but if you hold your ground and respond in kind he will tend far too often to descend to the famous argument-tipping “huff,” roll up his eyes and proclaim you obviously just another unworldly simpleton who needs to retake 1st Grade.

That is before, of course, you are probably labelled racist or worse. Still, this had been a mostly refreshing presidential confrontation. When compared to those of 2004, 2000, 1992, 1988, 1984 and 1980 (1996 being perhaps the major exception: yours truly does not recall this nuanced strategem being generally embraced by supporters of Clinton/Gore towards Dole/Kemp and/or their supporters), up until recently there had really been precious little carping from Democrats about “morons,” “stupidity” and “imbeciles.”

However, established form is hard not to revert to, especially in the “home stretch.” So, it being October, and with the last minute desperation setting in, we are now about back on track as expected. Where there were in the days of yore the likes of George W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Ronald Reagan, liberals have chosen to add Sarah Palin to their list of obviously dim bulb, Republican intellectual inferiors.

We’ll see how that one plays “in Peoria.” But worth bearing in mind also is this: in all of those races in which Republicans fielded a Democrat-decreed “idiot” in either spot on the ticket — save for the three-way oddity of 1992, in which an independent candidacy likely helped split the vote enough to enable Bill Clinton to overcome President George Bush and his “idiot” vice president, Dan Quayle — who won all of those presidential contests? In the end, the idiots Republicans.

For a party so full of self-evident intellectuals, it is remarkable that Democrats have not yet caught on. Instead, they now seem haughtily determined to try it again.

Naturally, though, the prime reason most American voters have inexplicably never totally caught on to Democrats’ sophisticated grasp of the inferiority of the opposition intellect? Because, arrgh! all those F*C*I*G WAL-MART SHOPPING, NON-PASSPORT OWNING, SUV-DRIVING, INVISIBLE-FRIEND WORSHIPPING VOTERS ARE!!!!! . . . uh, umm, no, no, not even Democrats can go quite that far, and hope to have any electoral chance at all.

_____________________________

UPDATE: Watched the debate, with the Wife.

Both stayed on their platform messages. Other general reactions?:

1) He got in his zingers. (He has also been called out on at least one major factual foreign policy “slip” — major for an “expert,” especially. In fairness, though, I think it was more a slip of the tongue. I may go back and have a listen again, before we delete it.)

2) She got in hers.

3) “Biden is actually more charismatic than Obama” (view of the Wife).

4) “The American people have nothing to fear from her as president. She’d do fine” (view of the Wife).

5) She has an excellent TV presence, often speaking to the camera, and thus to the individual voter. Until his final summation, he spent most of his time (seemingly?) speaking to the (Obama presidency-invested) moderator, and only occasionally glancing quickly at the camera.

6) None of the other three candidates is a genius. Most definitely not one in particular, despite what some seem to think. And while she is certainly not a genius either, she is also certainly not an “idiot.”

7) “Why is it that everyone is all over her supposed lack of experience, and not Obama’s?” (asked the Wife).

That “everyone” is mostly Democrats. And we all know why they are: remember, she has to be an “idiot,” because He‘s “The Savior.”

_____________________________

UPDATE, October 5: Just one example: from the poster through most of the commenters, is it even possible for worldly sophistication, dazzling braininess and all-encompassing downright intellectualism, to get any more scarily intimidating?