Imagine
By Mitch Berg
The worst enemy that fabian statism has is generalized prosperity.
It’s always been a theory – ’til now.
The North Dakota Democrat Party can muster not a single Democrat to run for office anywhere in Bakken country, according to Rob Port:
Democrats have managed to recruit exactly zero candidates in legislative districts representing the state’s oil patch with all local district conventions completed and less than two weeks to go before their statewide convention…If we count the urban districts in Minot and Bismarck as being “oil patch” districts, we add five more: Districts 3, 5, 7, 47 and 35. Of those, all have a full slate of Republican candidates, and just one has Democrat candidates.
And the North Dakota Democrat Party is fielding candidates for only about 1/3 of the state’s legislative races overall, almost exclusively in the eastern part of the state:
That speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Democrats will talk a lot about oil and energy policy this year, but the lack of Democrat candidates in the oil patch tells us their arguments aren’t getting much traction where that policy has the most impact.
What a glorious time to be alive.
March 24th, 2014 at 7:49 am
The idle rich wealthy tend to be Democrats (think Dayton, Hollywood, Soros, etc). Those that are prospering (not wealthy, but moving on up) due to hard work tend to be Republicans.
If I am working hard in the oil patch and doing okay because of it, I would not be interested in the party who is trying to tell me that I am a victim and need mother gov’t to help me.
March 24th, 2014 at 8:48 am
To that end, some speculation — if the Republicans take over the Senate in this election, I would not be surprised to see Heidi Heitkamp to cross the aisle.
March 24th, 2014 at 9:21 am
If I am working hard in the oil patch and doing okay because of it, I would not be interested in the party who is trying to tell me that I am a victim and need mother gov’t to help me.
Additionally, you would not be interested in the party that says that the means of your relative prosperity is evil, killing the planet, and must be stopped at all costs in favor of wasteful, inefficient “green” energy.
March 24th, 2014 at 10:05 am
Where there’s hard work and prosperity, democrats have no soil to till.
March 24th, 2014 at 12:13 pm
I am about half way through this book: The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939 .
It’s by John Carey, an honest to God Oxford don. Carey reviews books for the Sunday Times, sat on the committee that awards the Booker Prize twice, etc.
According to Carey, the English intellectual class hated universal literacy and hated the rising middle class. They were quite vocal about it. They despised the way the people in the middle class looked, where they lived, how they spoke, the way they dressed, the music they listened to, even the food they ate. In the pre WW2 days they cheerfully wrote that they should be all be killed, or at least not allowed to reproduce. They should have been out pushing a plow in a field, not bent over a book. Teaching those people to read and write was mistake. Made them think too much.
Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Virginia Woolf, Ezra Pound, T.S. Elioet, Clive Bell, D.H. Lawrence, Graham Greene — nearly all the English, Modernist writers of a century ago considered the increasing health, wealth and prosperity of the middle class to be a terrible thing.
But of course, they were English. Doesn’t say anything about the American intellectual class.
March 24th, 2014 at 2:00 pm
I wonder if we can get the environazi Democrats that are trumpeting globull warming to give up their cars for just one week? Nah! They only want everyone else to make sacrifices, because they are too important for that.
March 24th, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Just keep your eye on the ball, even if it seems to be sailing over the fence and out of the park.
I remember an SNL bit from the 90s where members of the cast took the roles of then-popular democratic big shots. The gist of the sketch was how none of them wanted to go up against the seemingly unbeatable incumbent, George Bush Sr., and were concocting supposedly humorous reasons why they couldn’t be the one.
It wasn’t truly funny until about one year later …