Last month, the Obama campaign tried to sell women — especially younger, single women — a life of government dependency in its unwittingly Orwellian “Life of Julia.” Even women inclined to support Barack Obama objected to the characterization of women as wards of the state. Polling results two weeks later showed that Obama lost significant ground among the demographics he had hoped to improve, and ever since, the Obama campaign has apparently relegated the eyeless, mouthless “Julia” to the Island of Misfit Campaign Mascots.
That doesn’t mean that critics have forgotten “Julia,” though. A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity features Emily O’Neill, who accurately deconstructs the message from Team Obama within the first minute, with devastating impact. Emily then proposes an alternate reality, called “The Life of Emily,” which relies on hard work, good economic choices, and rejects the need for a Hubby State for young American women — such as herself:
Dan Mitchell hails this a good instruction on the difference between empowerment and dependency:
But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101″ video.
It’s narrated by Emily O’Neill, who contrasts the moocher mentality of Julia with how she wants her life to develop. To give away the message, she wants the kind of fulfillment that only exists when you earn things.
Emily’s view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that government-imposed coercion and redistribution erode the social capital of a people.
Women have a choice, as Emily demonstrates, at least for the moment. They can aspire to become Julia the Moocher or Emily the Empowered. Which message do you think will sell better over the next five months, and which offers the kind of paternalistic attitude that represents the antithesis of the women’s movement?