If I were to give you a map or the layout of the liberal establishment that detailed how their network was put together, how they communicated, and their detailed plans on how to win elections would you pay attention? Would you use that blueprint to undermine their work or bypass it altogether? Would you use it to win elections? Would you even believe the map is real?
In World War 2, the Allies knew that they needed to crack the German Enigma codes to have a chance at beating the Axis powers. It was late in 1941 when that code was cracked and by 1945 nearly all of the Enigma traffic could be decrypted and read in a single day. Yet the Germans believed their code unbreakable even at the end of the war.
General Eisenhower considered this breakthrough to be critical in the success the Allies achieved during the war but it was not always appreciated by those who read the intercepts. For example, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel unknowingly tipped his hand at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in 1943. And while his actions were known prior to the battle, the Allied Commanders failed to act on the intelligence they had and nearly lost.
So, what does the German Enigma Code of World War 2 have to do with our modern political structure and the liberal establishment?
The Liberal Enigma code has been cracked.
Two articles appeared recently detailing both the structure of the Liberal Establishment as well as their tactical plan for winning elections.
Gabriella Morrongiello at the Heritage Foundation released a detailed map on The Daily Signal of the Left’s Political Network in one chart. This handy little chart details the progressive organizations including nonprofits, think tanks, and grassroots organizations. And that list is larger than you think consisting of 21 Core Organizations and Functions as well as 161 Partner and Aligned Network Organizations.
As large as this network is, there is a very literal Catalyst that binds them together. Not ideology, rather, a database called Catalist. Christian Adams does an excellent job of detailing this over at PJ Media and I highly recommend taking the time to read his article. But there is two huge take aways that needs to be highlighted.
Obama won reelection because he drove deeper into his ideological base than any Democrat ever had. His campaign largely ignored the middle and instead used Catalist data to wring out nearly every possible far-left vote they could.
Ever wonder why Obama has swung hard left and doesn’t care? He doesn’t have to. But it’s the reaction from GOP insiders that is baffling.
Some of you reading this might think this is much ado about nothing, because the Republicans can match the power of Catalist. Think again.
When I first approached one political insider about how to dissect Hersh in his upcoming expert deposition some months ago, he understandably could not believe that the Obama campaign would have given an academic writing a dissertation insider access to their data tools and strategies to use them. And therein lies the central mind-block to why the GOP has not matched Catalist.
That’s right. The code has been cracked but like the American commanders at Kesserine Pass in Tunisia, the GOP insiders are choosing to ignore it.
History notes that the Americans learned some hard lessons at Kesserine Pass and several commanders and general were replaced. Unfortunately, the 2012 election isn’t the parallel to that WW2 battle. More than likely the 2016 election will be.
Having information is useless if it is not acted upon. We have an opportunity to change the tide yet unlike the Allies we apparently don’t have the ability to work together and act on it. Mr. Adams makes that point about Catalist, it isn’t the data, it’s the collaboration.
Catalist does not derive its power because it has the insiders imprimatur as the official party-sanctioned database. It derives its power because nobody feeding it data cares about who gets the glory. They have a country to transform.
Championship teams succeed because they don’t care about personal glory, they care about winning; even at the expense of personal gain. Too many Conservatives want to be superstars more than they want to win elections, and that’s why we lose elections.