Spoiling Julia Rotten

This is a really good piece from Jay Cost in The Weekly Standard, about the modern Democratic Party's clientism problem.

And under the Obama administration, clientele liberalism has achieved a kind of apotheosis. The stimulus, the health care bill, cap and trade, and the financial reform package were all designed with heavy input from the party’s clients, and ultimately each reflects their priorities, so much so that any kind of national purpose the legislation might have served was totally undermined. The stimulus catered far too much to Democratic clients, hence its measly effect on the economy; Obamacare was a veritable smorgasbord of goodies for Democratic backers, from feminists to unions to big business, while the average American will see no material improvement in the cost or security of his health insurance; and financial reform ultimately won the backing of the mega-banks on Wall Street, which not coincidentally had given overwhelmingly to Democrats in the 2008 cycle.

When viewed in light of these legislative monstrosities, “The Life of Julia” begins to make more sense. It is not merely an artless appeal to a swing demographic, it also symbolizes the modus operandi of the modern party. No longer interested in or capable of operating on behalf of the public good, the party is intent on buying its way to 50 percent-plus-one of the electorate. The message: Vote for Obama and you’ll get stuff!

Read it all...

Life of Julia, summarized...

Another winner from Michael Ramirez, who offers a summary of the summary that was the Obama campaign's Life of Julia...

The condescension of the patriarchy

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite like the Obama campaign's The Life of Julia. This slide show walks through the life of a fictional woman ("Julia") who lives her entire life suckling at the government teat provided her by Uncle Sam and Big-Daddy Obama. Government provides her with an education, more education, health care, more health care, education for her child, more money to open a business, more health care, retirement benefits, and, as near as one can tell from the presentation, all at no cost to her.

Obviously, there's not a serious argument being made here. They aren't trying to convince anyone of the rightness of their position; they're trying to convince those people who already agree with the rightness of their position to come out and vote. Even so, there's an astounding amount of question-begging contained in the presentation. For example,

• Is there any evidence that Head Start actually provides any long-term benefit?
• Is there any reason to suspect that the "Race to the top" program provides any long-term benefit?
• Is there any reason to believe that Pell Grants have made College more, rather than less, affordable?
• Why is Julia worse off with her health care decisions "place[d] ... in the hands of her employer" as opposed to being placed in the hands of government bureaucrats?
• Does Zachary have a father? Why can't he and Julia provide for Zachary's birth and health care and schooling, instead of letting Big-Daddy Obama take care of it?
• Where is all of that money for Julia's Medicare and Social Security going to come from if she's collecting from the Federal treasury from the time she's an infant?

The big question that it all begs is this - why the hell can't Julia do some of these things for herself? Why on earth does the government have to do all of it for her? The entire presentation just drips with sexism and condescension, as poor Julia, delicate flower, cannot live her life without the constant and beneficent hand of the government, as provided by Big-Daddy Barack. She's such a weakling that a Romney administration would inevitably result in her destruction.

I'd think a feminist would be appalled by this presentation, but what do I know? I'm not a feminist...