Replies

...The part you read is merely a summary of pop-psychoanalysis of the GOP so popular among the left today, which he spends the rest of the article arguing against.

I'm amazed how many people on this site never read beyond the first few sentences of an article.

Yes, many people here do comment on articles they haven't read, but I read well beyond the first paragraph (I decided that reading all of it was a waste of time), and I did not get the impression that the author was necessarily arguing against his original assertion. He was merely trying to explain that there was more to the support for Republicans than pure economic interest. By the halfway point in the article, which is about where I stopped, he still hadn't disputed the idea that Democrat economic policies were more beneficial to working Americans. If it was his intention to be satirical or ironic, he failed miserably.

As a general rule of writing, your first paragraph lays out the framework for your entire paper. If you make an assertion in the first paragraph, and give no hint that the assertion will be questioned later, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the paper will be in support of the assertion. If the assertion is sufficiently ridiculous, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume the whole paper is a waste of time. I actually only read as far as I did because I saw others claiming that this piece was really a pro-Republican piece which challenges Democrat assumptions. I saw no evidence of that.

fr_freak said: "By the halfway point in the article, which is about where I stopped, he still hadn't disputed the idea that Democrat economic policies were more beneficial to working Americans. "

Despite the "fairness" to Republicans, the focus of the article seems to be on how to "re-package" the Democrat message so as to win more elections. This seems to suggest that Democrats are more "correct" than Republicans and can thus more easily become the winners of elections with just a few tweaks to their message.

Otherwise, Republicans will almost inexplicably continue to win by the accidental coincidence that our belief system more exactly matches the desires of the voters.