Payday loans
Cialis

When the Democrat Party Left You Behind

While House Democrats in 1970 voted with their party's majority only 58 percent of the time, that figure is now 91 percent.

Many years ago, a very nice lady with whom I was having a political discussion announced to me, "I'm a Democrat." My immediate response was, "By birth or by choice?"

It's a relevant question for many Americans, as some treat party affiliation as if it's akin to ethnicity. It can work like this: Their pappy was a Democrat, and their grandpappy was a Democrat, and their great-grandpappy was a Democrat, so they have to be one, too. This is despite the fact that the party has changed along with the generations. Their grandfather is gone – and so is the party which he once supported.

This is why it's interesting when an elderly person who was a passionate Democrat in his salad days is still so today. I would say to such an individual, "It was very brave of you to admit you were all wrong about things and abandon all your old beliefs." If this left him puzzled, I'd explain that since the Democrat Party is radically different today than it was 50 years ago – since it's now pro-abortion, for all intents and purposes promotes faux marriage, advocates race-based quotas, pushes amnesty for illegals, bails out wealthy fat cats with our tax money and refuses to enforce laws in a race-neutral fashion (the Black Panther case), among other things – that he must accept this radical agenda as well. After all, to oppose this ideological sea-change in the Democrats but still support them would be to place party ahead of principle.

We all know, of course, that principle must take precedence. So I have a question: How does it make sense to, in the name of loyalty to your grandfather's party, abandon his principles? Did he stand for the secular agenda outlined above, which also includes things such as an unconstitutional and coercive healthcare plan, measures to let non-citizens vote, suing states for enforcing immigration law (razing Arizona), punishing schoolchildren based on racial quotas, opposition to Second Amendment rights (not an issue presently only because it's a vote-loser), the effort at thought control known as hate-crime law, confiscatory taxation, politically correct speech codes on college campuses and sensitivity training in workplaces, and granting the federal government almost unlimited power over our lives?

Certainly, there are rank-and-file Democrats who do embrace the above. You'll find many of them in my area (near NYC), for instance; these are people who are every bit as liberal as the politicians for whom they vote. But when I traveled through Middle America, I encountered a different kind of Democrat. These were people who were fairly traditional Americans – but ethnic Democrats. They don't accept the agenda I outlined; in fact, misled by the mainstream media, they often aren't fully aware their party has adopted it and, consequently, orphaned them. They don't realize that ceasing to vote Democrat would not be leaving the party, as you can't leave something that left you long ago. It would simply be a recognition of the abandonment.

Yet ethno-political patriotism can be a powerful force. When hearing evidence of this painful abandonment, many ethnic Democrats will rationalize it away, much like an abandoned child may convince himself that daddy will be home any day now. But that day will not come. Contemporary absentee Democrat politicians – who, as Reagan said, "have gone so far left, they've left the country" – will only come home for your votes. Their hearts are in Washington, D.C., which, under their dominion, isn't even in America anymore.

Of course, there are some middle-American Democrats who will still feel comfortable voting for their party's nominee in their district races, believing he's far more traditional than the party average (often the case in conservative districts). Here, however, we must be mindful of a certain factor: Politicians not only feel party patriotism – they feel party pressure. If Democrat politicians buck their leadership's line too much, they can incur the wrath of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis. This is no doubt one reason why the so-called Blue Dog Democrats elected in 2008 quashed the hopes of many and signed on to the Obama agenda.

What this helps underline is that while some apathetic folks like to say it doesn't matter whom you vote for because, and we've all heard this, "There's no difference between the parties, anyway!" they have it exactly backwards. The difference is the greatest it has been in modern times.

Consider that while House Democrats in 1970 voted with their party's majority only 58 percent of the time, that figure is now 91 percent. And it is precisely the same among Senate Democrats. (Among Republicans, the party-unity figures are only slightly lower, 87 and 85 percent, respectively.) Even more to the point, with extremely rare exception, even the least liberal Democrats vote with their party approximately 75 percent of the time.

What does this mean? If you want to stop the Obama-Pelosi-Reid, unconstitutional, uber-statist metastasizing of government, you must do what may seem to contradict this article's thesis. Instead of judging a candidate solely on his merits, you must also consider his party before casting a vote for him. But you don't do this driven by ethno-political loyalty, but for a thoroughly logical reason.

He will consider his party when casting votes for you.

In other words, let's say you have a Democrat and a Republican running in your district who are (or at least seem) like ideological twins. They may both talk a good game – and it's even possible that both may be good people. But only one of them will feel pressure to join the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis. Only one will have the screws put to him to vote for legislation such as the healthcare disaster, cap-and-tax, the porkulus bill and amnesty for illegals. Only one of them will be a member of the No-Longer-Your-Grandfather's-Democrat Party.

And, remember, party affiliation is not ethnic orientation. "American," though, ought to be.

I think granddad would understand perfectly.

Share

2 comments to When the Democrat Party Left You Behind

  • Patrick Mulligan

    The nostalgic Democratic party of yesteryear is really only different from today’s by matter of degree, and hardly even that.

    Bear in mind that when good ol’ grandpappy pulled the lever for his Democrats in the 1930′s he was voting for Social Security, the National Recovery Administration, a “second bill of rights” complete with a right to housing, healthcare and a particular level of income, 90% income tax rates, the most stifling regulation of finance and business since the drafting of the constitution, the biggest expansion of executive power since the Civil War, and the permanent presidency of a megalomaniac that was only stifled by his merciful death.

    When pappy pulled the lever for his Democrats in the 1960′s he was voting for Medicare, the War on Poverty, public housing projects, escalation in Vietnam, and the largest expansion of government since the New Deal.

    When pappy pulled the lever for his Democrats again in the 1970′s he was voting for a raving anti-Semite, the Iran hostage crisis, the federalization of education, double digit inflation combined with stagnation for the first time in modern economic history (for that we owe him a debt – many doctoral economics papers were written on this anomaly which under Keynesian economic theory should have been impossible), ballooning spending on the entitlement programs created by his votes in the previous decade along with grandpappy’s votes in the 30′s, and the return of 90% income tax rates.

    And when junior voted for Obama he was voting for 1.4 trillion dollar deficits, socialization of major industrial sectors, explicit promises of income tax hikes and a cap and trade plan that would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”, the “spreading around” of wealth, normalized relations with insane middle eastern thugs, special carveouts for unions, and a new multi-trillion-dollar healthcare entitlement complete with federal funding of abortion.

    Please explain to me how junior voted for much of anything different than pappy and grandpappy voted for. The only difference perhaps is that Obama was more honest about his intentions than the Democrats pappy and grandpappy voted for, although that is not entirely true if one simply reads the transcripts of some of FDR’s campaign speeches, which are among the most anti-business, anti-market screeds in all recorded history, in good company with Stalin and Trotsky. Johnson was not exactly cryptic about his intentions either, with his agenda being crystal clear by the time he was actually elected by vote. After this long line of Democratic disasters, pappy and grandpappy probably should have been bright enough to realize the character of the Democratic party in plenty of time to avoid the national embarrassments of Carter and Obama. Either pappy and grandpappy were so stupid that went through 70 years of Democratic politics oblivious to reality surrounding them, in which case junior’s stupidity is hardly surprising and likely hereditary, or pappy and grandpappy were every bit as liberal as junior and consciously voted for Democrats whose legislative agenda puts even the ostensibly uber-liberal Obama’s to shame. Did the party really leave these Democrats?

  • [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MQuidam, Khaled Eibid, Sean Rowlett, IC Politics, Rachel Alexander and others. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: When the Democrat Party Left You Behind http://bit.ly/dimqrU [...]

Leave a Reply

Articles Archived by Topic