Posted on 12/26/2014 5:50:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Democrats have done very well politically by convincing voters that they are, in a very broad sense, on the side of the little guy. "Republicans," they say, "take care of the rich, but we Democrats are the party that brought you Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, the Civil Rights Act, free school lunches, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and Obamacare. We are the party that will tax rich Republicans to fund government programs that help poor and middle-class Democrats." Like mothers, Democrats are nurturing and supportive.
There are a few little problems with this narrative. Most of those programs, for good or ill, had bipartisan support. Further, Head Start has been a colossal failure; the school lunch program is overly broad and encourages waste (with 64 percent of children getting free or reduced-price lunches); civil rights laws (in direct contravention of the promises of their original backers) have been interpreted to permit quotas and "reverse discrimination"; AFDC wound up encouraging unwed childbearing and arguably contributing to poverty; and Obamacare is causing the middle class to pay higher premiums for more limited medical care while still covering only a fraction of the uninsured.
Still, the "mommy party" retains its "caring" image.
The Democrats have another reputation. They are perceived as the party of weakness -- against both criminals at home and enemies abroad. Events of the past several weeks and months have underlined that second reputation in (pardon the expression) red ink.
The Democratic senators' decision to release a report excoriating the CIA for "torture" after the 9/11 attacks was designed to impugn the Bush administration and the nation's security agencies. In weak-minded fashion, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues insisted that the harsh interrogation of terrorists was immoral and also completely ineffective.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about rejecting torture or anything close to it. But when the senators insist that it didn't work -- despite the contrary assessment of five CIA directors of both parties -- they betray a fundamental unseriousness. Of course it worked. That's why it presents a moral dilemma. Otherwise, they're asserting that the CIA is manned by sadists who did these things for kicks. Presumably, if that had been true, Eric Holder's Justice Department, which conducted a lengthy investigation, would have brought charges. But it didn't. Finally, the senators' claims that they were kept in ignorance have been abundantly contradicted by the public record and by statements from the CIA officers who did the briefings.
The attempt to discredit the Bush administration and engage in moral preening failed. Polls showed that despite the Senate report, Americans support the limited use of harsh interrogation by a 2-1 margin.
President Barack Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba without demanding much of anything in exchange further fits the less attractive Democratic stereotype of weakness on foreign policy. As in the case of Iran in 2009, Cuba in 2014 is on the ropes, facing the loss of the subventions from Venezuela that have kept it afloat since the collapse of the USSR. Obama could have demanded free elections, freedom of the press or an end to the persecution of human rights champions. Instead, he displayed a penchant for rescuing brutal regimes in both cases.
Similarly, when the tin-pot communist crank in North Korea threatened to commit another 9/11 against America if we screened a movie he resented, the president of the United States seemed to think it was Sony's problem, Sony's decision, Sony's fate. A manlier approach would have been a steely warning that if one hair on one American's head were to be damaged by Pyongyang, Kim Jong Un's regime would be history.
At home, the Democrats -- from Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York to Holder and Obama in Washington -- seem to take public safety too lightly. They've insulted the integrity of the American people by implying that support for law enforcement amounts to racism. Americans were able to distinguish between police conduct in Ferguson, Missouri (justified), and that in Staten Island, New York (unjustified). By encouraging racial arsonists such as Al Sharpton, Democrats have betrayed the vast majority of Americans of any race.
People like moms who coddle them, but they also respect and honor dads who defend them and keep them safe. The Democratic Party has done well by being Mom. But its complete inability to be fatherly when necessary may prove very damaging.
Democrats never makes anything better.
“The Rats are only a few degrees worse than the GOPe.”
Equally bad in different ways. See tag line.
Compassionate conservatism = mommy party. No Child Left Behind by the federal government.
The liberal is the child. All things are new, all things are possible. All is kindness and lovable little puppies. The Conservative is the father who whispers in the child’s ear that most things have been tried, possibilities have problems, kindness is expensive and lovable little puppies may turn into mean ugly dogs. — FReeper Captain Compassion
BTTT
The Mommy Party has devolved into the Party of Fruits and Nuts.
The Democratic Party is the party of entitlements, single mom families and minimum wage jobs.
In short it is the party of incompetence, illiteracy, and good enough.
True conservatives, on the other hand, strive for education and being the best at what they do, and “Second Place is just another name for First Loser”.
“It takes a man to make a man”, a concept that is foreign to Democrats.
People see Democrats as a gullible and weak mother... not as a Father.
Fathers tend to love conditionally. Mother’s unconditionally. With a father you have to earn your love - which teaches justice and fair play. With Mom you just have to be in need. Both are needed to a degree in a healthy family... but the overdone ‘mother part’ is destructive in a culture.
Democrats are the weak minded mother who’s so afraid of losing love that she’s constantly played for a fool...
It isn’t necessary to defend “conservatism,” because although we are conservative with respect to process, we are not conservative aspirationaly. That is, we want the Constitution adhered to - but the Constitution actually promotes progress - and therefore promotes change. The word “progress” appears in the Constitution:Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .We’re in favor of progress of, by, and for the American people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.