Whether liberal drivel in my local newspapers or on the national news outlets, a disturbingly amusing trend has developed with regards to the Democratic Party's "message." The final straw was an interview with Charles Schumer (D-NY) on a morning news show with Charlie Rose. Before getting into it, one needs to understand that the Democrats almost to a person are demonstrating a psychological process that makes sense. Whether this is a conscious effort or not, it shows that they are collectively in dire straits and they know it.
In Freudian psychological theory, people develop defense mechanisms in order to alleviate anxiety and stress. For example, one is called sublimation. Here, people bury their emotions to the point that they find expression elsewhere. Although seriously psychologically "disturbed," people express themselves through art, music or literature. Much of the concept of the "tortured artist" persona can be explained through sublimation. If only sublimation was the problem of the Democratic Party. Instead, they have resorted to the defense mechanism of projection. Psychological projection is defined as "denying one's own attributes, thoughts and emotions which are then ascribed to the outside world..."
First, let us look at one complaint of the Obama campaign- that Mitt Romney's advertisements are false and nasty. Considering the fact that a quirk of campaign finance laws prevent Romney's campaign from running ads until after the recently held convention, they must be referring to independent group commercials. If that is the case and they are simultaneously blaming Romney, then they are suggesting that the Romney campaign is coordinating these advertisements with the independent groups which would run afoul of federal election laws. Of course, there is no evidence of coordination with respect to the Republicans. Compare this with the disgusting Joe Soptic ad run by an independent Democratic group where he suggests that Romney was somehow responsible for the death of his wife. Besides being factually incorrect with a skewed timeline of events (Romney had long left Bain Capital when the steel plant closed and the wife lost her health benefits when she lost her job), Mr. Soptic had previously appeared in an Obama campaign commercial about the closure of that steel plant in Kansas City in another context. When the commercial was run, most people cried foul over the content and the insinuation in that commercial. When the Obama campaign realized the negative reaction to the commercial, they distanced themselves from it. When it was revealed that Soptic had appeared in an Obama commercial and that there was apparently some conference calls involved- possible coordination- their campaign had to backtrack on their original comments. Then they glossed it over by deflecting attention from the main question by stating that the GOP was distracting from the message that Bain Capital raided companies with little regard for employees. As a result, the thrust of the original outcry was thwarted.
The bottom line is that while they decry Republican attack ads, they engage in even worse attack ads and interviews. After all, the Soptic ad insinuated that Romney's actions killed his wife; that is, Romney is somehow guilty of manslaughter or murder. In interviews, they have portrayed Romney as a felon claiming that he lied on SEC filings after leaving Bain Capital. That is, he violated some arcane SEC rule and is thus a criminal. Meanwhile, they worry about his tax returns, why he will not release more and, therefore, he must be hiding something. They do this ignorant of the fact that he is only required to release two year's worth of tax returns, which he has. Then while they are focusing attention on tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, and old SEC filings, they accuse (project) the GOP of distracting voters.
If anything, Romney has remained rather on-message during this campaign. The bulk of the recent convention centered around two things- jobs and the economy. Obama? Tax returns and Bain Capital. Also, with the addition of Ryan to the ticket, he placed an exclamation point on the economic message. For the first time in recent memory, social issues like abortion and gay marriage were but blurbs at the Republican National Convention. It should be added that while Democrats and the Obama campaign attempt to "keep the heat on" Romney regarding his tax returns, Obama still refuses to release his college transcripts. Perhaps a case can be made that the Democrats are only turning the tables on the GOP regarding Romney's tax returns vis-a-vis the transcript question. They also bring up the "birther question," an issue that the majority of Republicans have moved beyond, but Democrats have not. An appearance with Donald Trump, for example, is portrayed as a Romney support of "birthers," even though he has disavowed them on numerous occasions.
Let us also look at the alleged Ryan lies from his convention speech. Mainly, let us look at the Democratic take on Obama's tacit rejection of the findings of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Yes, it is true that Ryan refused to sign on to the commission's findings and yes, it is true that Ryan gave a speech on the House floor against it. But, what he said about Obama and the commission is factually correct. Ryan was making the point that Obama cannot now embrace it during the campaign when he tacitly rejected it then, or at the very least failed to show any leadership and take the issue to the American people. That comment by Ryan was in relation to and an illustration of Obama's lack of leadership- not some hypocritical commonality with Obama over the findings of Simpson-Bowles. Because Ryan omitted his disapproval of it is then portrayed as a lie by the Democrats and their proxies in the media, especially the great self-appointed arbiters of truth, the fact checkers. The bottom line question is did Barack Obama endorse the commission's findings when they were released and if so, why did he not show leadership and make a greater case for their passage? Likewise, they don't deny that Obama is taking over $700 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, but instead deflect attention by saying that Ryan also wants to take an equal amount from Medicare. That is, they fail to answer the charge other than to accuse the other side of lying or being disingenuous. Incidentally, Ryan does not deny that his plan takes $700 billion from Medicare AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. The difference is he applies the $700 billion to MEDICARE AS HE PROPOSES.
Which brings me to a real doosie of a projection- the cute accusations that the GOP wants to return us to the days of "black and white television," or even better, that the GOP is the "party of 1812." Entitlement reform proposals by Republicans- be it food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security- are light years ahead of the doubling down on the status quo that Democrats have proposed over the many years. They are the party engrossed with programs rooted in the New Deal of the 1930s or the failed experiments of the Great Society in the 1960s. Regardless, just taking the example of Social Security, the Ryan Plan attempts to do here in the United States what Chile and other Latin American countries did with great success in the 1980s. There, average household incomes increased as a result and there was greater retirement security with the added bonus of people, not the government, dictating retirement ages. How can a reform idea that retains, for those who want it, the current government-run system while offering another option to younger workers be a throwback to the days of black and white television or 1812? How can fundamental Medicare reforms not be more advanced than the status quo? How can revising and simplifying a tax code be backwards? It becomes painfully obvious that it is the Democratic Party that is woefully stuck in a bygone era of American history. Yet, they project that love for the "good old days" upon the Republican Party ignorant of the fact that the United States of the 21st Century is a much different United States than that which existed in 1935 or even 1965.
In fact, it a small wonder that the Democratic Party is not calling for protective tariffs or embargo of certain foreign products in the name of helping American manufacturing. Of course, this would not necessarily help American manufacturing as much as helping American manufacturing unions. As a result, American consumers would be forced to pay more for products they take for granted now...like a pair of tube socks made in China. And speaking of unions, is it any wonder that about 95% of union campaign donations goes to the Democratic Party? Meanwhile, union membership in the private sector now stands at about 12% of the workforce. Put another way, the American worker is rejecting unionization in record numbers because the employer-employee relationship is not the same as it was in the 1930s when the NLRB was a necessary government evil. Between changing management styles and other unrelated legislation (overtime, work hours, safety, child labor, etc.), there is less a need for unions today. Yet, the Democratic Party maintains the posture prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s that unions are the ticket to worker success. What can be more backwards looking than that?
Then there is my favorite- voter ID laws. The Democrats claim that these are nothing more than de facto poll taxes imposed on the elderly and minorities in an effort to disenfranchise them. On the one hand they claim that the need for these laws is not necessary since there is not widespread voter fraud. First, ANY voter fraud is bad, not just widespread voter fraud. And if voter fraud does not exist, then how come Barack Obama, when running for state senate in Illinois, used actual examples of alleged voter fraud to get his opposition kicked off the primary ballot? It is apparent that the existence of voter fraud is very much real when its discovery is to the advantage of Barack Obama. While they claim this is a GOP attempt to disenfranchise blacks, Hispanics, the elderly and students (young voters), why has minority, youth and senior citizen voter registration and turnout actually increased in states with voter ID laws? And if paying $2 for a state-issued photo ID, or traveling to a place that issues them, is such a burden on these allegedly targeted voting blocks, then why can't community organizers like ProjectVote, Rock the Vote, or ACORN pony up the money or provide the transportation instead of fighting these laws in court? That would seem like a better solution to the alleged problem.
It is strangely amusing while also being disgusting how the Democratic Party has resorted to projecting upon the Republican Party those very actions and attributes which they are guilty of doing themselves. They are attempting to manipulate the language because if they do that, they control the conversation. As was mentioned at the beginning, one resorts to a psychological defense mechanism as a means to lessen anxiety and stress. This is merely an example that the Democratic Party under Barack Obama realizes they have no record to run on and that the chances of success of their messiah lessens with each passing day. No one listens to the "same failed policies of the past 8 years" rhetoric any more. The American public and voter knows this is Obama's economy now and he can project blame onto Bush all he wants, but people know otherwise. If the Democratic Party were a patient of Freud, after Obama loses reelection, they will be on the couch for quite a while because the patient is seriously mentally deranged.