Kinsley: "Plantation" Politics and Other Games

[kskiska]

It seems to be time once again to play Kick the Democrats. Everyone can play, including Democrats. The rules are simple. When Republicans lose elections, it is because they didn't get enough votes. When Democrats lose elections, it is because they have lost their principles and lost their way. Or they have kept their principles, which is an even worse mistake.

(snip)

How dire is it for the Democrats? George Will noted on TV the other day that they have lost five of the past seven presidential elections. This baseball-like statistic -- "Democrats have lost X of the past Y elections" -- has been one of Will's favorite tropes over the generations. But why now five out of seven? Two out of the past four would be equally accurate, and not nearly as grim. And then there is the election of 2000. We can argue forever (and will) about who won that election, but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats. Attributing 2000 to the Democrats means they have won two of the past three elections, three of the past four, and a non-apocalyptic three of the magic seven.

(snip)

But that metaphor of a corrupt plantation seemed more familiar than just one of Newt's old ravings. And indeed the Wall Street Journal editorial page has used it more than once. In 2001, for example, the man who now runs that page, Paul Gigot, wrote (in reference to Sen. Joe Lieberman) about "how . . . the black liberal establishment can punish a Democrat who strays from their plantation." The previous year, an editorial about the Massachusetts congressional delegation carried the headline, "The Liberal Plantation."

And then (just to show what a little Googling can do), there was a small 2001 item in the Wall Street Journal's news section about Vice President Cheney spending the weekend shooting quail at the "plantation" of a rich Republican contributor. Hillary Clinton uses the word "plantation" while Dick Cheney actually goes to one. But that's the Democrats for you: all talk and no action.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701219_pf.html

[AX10]

1. I take it that there is alot of sarcasm in this article.

/

[ljm2002]

2. It is great to see...

...more and more articles like Kinsley's, calling out the fact that Republican framing and hypocrisy is the real issue, rather than things like Hillary's use of the word "plantation". I love how he skewers the WSJ and its lame explanation of why it was okay for Gingrich to use the word ("had the good taste to cast himself as a slave who would 'lead the slave rebellion.'"), whereas Hillary's use of the term was patronizing ("Must blacks have their slave past rubbed in their face . . .?"). Kinsley rightly calls the WSJ editorial "hilarious", and his comment re their Gingrich remarks is itself hilarious, albeit in a good way: "Well, each to his own good taste, I suppose."