Posted on 10/09/2004 8:57:03 PM PDT by Jacobis
Something has happened to the once great Democratic Party. In years past, Democrats stood for truly noble causes, such as equality and assisting the underprivileged. While one may argue that their methodology was flawed (the Great Society never produced fewer poor), it was hard to argue that their approach lacked moral authority. But the Democratic Party of today has morphed, moving away from many of its members. The views of the party have broadened (liberalized) to the point of being arbitrary and internally inconsistent. Indeed, the stands taken by the new Democratic Party are contradictory to their own former ideals, as well as to the historic precepts upon which America was founded. In trying to stand for everything, one really stands for nothing. (This would explain why, as Ann Coulter says, we have to consult a Ouija board to get John Kerry's final answer). I shall offer several lines of logic and evidence.
1. Too many powerful Democrat aligned groups, led by the ACLU, are at war with God. They want to remove every meaningful vestige of God from society. Can't they see, as our founders so clearly did, that unless we acknowledge unalienable rights from a source higher than ourselves, our only rights are those given or taken by people with the most political power? As John Adams put it, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."
2. In addition to our religious heritage, there are many other areas in which activist Democratic judges are making law from the bench rather just interpreting it. There is a word for the condition when a few powerful people violate the constitution by nullifying law against the will of the people--tyranny.
3. Too many liberals are even questioning the very foundations of our free society based on individual rights and obligations. They want more power for the state over the lives of individuals. The genius of America is that man can govern himself, with help from God, from the bottom up. The elements of government in order of importance are self, family, local government, national government, not the reverse. The evidence is quite clear that all statist utopian ideas based on the false concept that man is inherently good or at least perfectible by the state, whether it be communism or Islamic law,always lead to oppression.
4. If the Democratic Party was true to its historical ideal of standing up for the most helpless in society, the first class of people they would protect are the innocent unborn. Why is it that so many pro-choice Democrats, Clinton, Gore, and others, once claimed to be champions of unborn children? Could it just be that they all switched when the political winds changed? Where is the moral authority in this? Just consider the position of John Kerry. He says life begins at conception, yet he supports the woman's right to choose. Logic does not allow us to accept the line that, "Well, I believe it is wrong, but I would not tell you what to do?" (Just substitute any other behavior in that sentence: How about, "I believe that rape is wrong, but I wouldn't stop you if you want to rape someone.") The moral principal is that we do not have the right to do wrong. Liberals would have us believe that they are pro-life for being against capital punishment and war. They have it backwards. The goal should be to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
5. As for education, why is it that the Party opposes school choice? For what conceivable reason should they stop a parent from taking advantage of public financing options to send their child to a better school? Is the only consideration the affection of the teachers' union? Where is the moral authority in this?
6. The Democrats' pushing for hate crimes legislation is actually contrary to America's philosophy of equal justice under the law. Why should, for example, a perpetrator of a crime against your loved one or mine be treated less severely than someone who commits the same crime against a person who has been designated a victim of a "hate crime?"
7. And what is on the mind of the blindly anti-war Democrats? The fact is that there are many people in the world who have dedicated their lives to killing every American possible. The misguided idea that if we just acquiesce everything will be OK, flies in the face of reality. The entire history of mankind is that there is an evil side to people that seeks power over others. The utopian pacifists want to make us feel like America is the guilty party, when we were the ones who were attacked!
8. Despite the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence, that everyone in America has a right to the Pursuit of Happiness, some Democrat leaders seem to denigrate success. Their rhetoric segregates "upper class" from everyone else. John Kerry and John Edwards speak of "Two Americas" as part of their campaign. Actually, 2% of Americans pay 45% of the federal income taxes. How much more do they want? While we should encourage voluntary philanthropy, we should not indulge in legal theft--the forced taking of something from one person to give to another. The historic ideal is to encourage people to move up the ladder; the Democrat idea is to belittle or punish those who do so.
9. Liberals often segregate us rather than integrate us in other ways. Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One). But the Democrats are trying to reverse it to be Out of One, Many. They continually identify some of us as African-Americans, or Native-Americans, etc. When will everyone in the melting pot of the world become just "Americans" again? As Bill Cosby points out, it does the black population no good to get unique names and to continue using their own dialect. Instead, a better way to meld into society is by learning to use standard English and by learning the principles of economics. Nor does it help to constantly give minorities negative messages by telling them that they need special privileges (affirmative action) to survive. As black columnist Walter Williams tells white liberals, "Stop your condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks. Treat me like a white person." Democrats are actually suppressing minorities in our society!
10. There is untenable logic in their environmental views too. The valid reason to be an environmentalist is because God commanded us to be good stewards of the environment. The Christian worldview is one in which the individual has a moral commitment to sacrifice things of the self in order to uplift others and the world around himself. But many Democrats become "Mother Earth" environmentalists, worshipping the earth in clear violation of the First Commandment to have no other Gods before Him. They are also typically committed to the philosophy of philosophical naturalism--that is, Darwinian evolution. Is it not a contradiction that one would embrace a philosophy of the selfish survival of the fittest, and at the same time proclaim an unselfish obligation to the world outside of oneself?
11. Democrats seem to champion "alternative lifestyles," ignoring the truth that homosexuality is contrary to God's natural order. The body parts still do not fit. Yet liberals want gay marriage, domestic partnership benefits, and so forth. The irony is that the gay life style is terribly destructive. The best available evidence indicates that those practicing homosexuality have a 20-30% shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population, not even counting AIDS. Statistics are clear about the increased risk of many diseases in the gay lifestyle, in part because of the medical consequences of what homosexuals physically do, as well as promiscuity among gays. (There is almost no such thing as a monogamous homosexual, a situation that does not change with "gay marriage.") Indeed, the entire movement is based on a lie. The evidence says there is no "gay gene." All such purported studies have been discredited. After all, from which parent could they have inherited it? The only thing that comes from this movement is to perpetuate an awful lie, to foster more disillusionment, more disastrous lives. It is not compassionate in any sense to foster this.
12. The "Big Tent" philosophy of the modern Democratic Party is just another name for relativism--that there is no absolute truth. They accept anyone into their circle, except of course those of us who believe in absolute truth. The real truth is that while all people are equal, all ideas or actions are not equal. Taken to its logical extreme, we see that the perfect example of a moral relativist is a SOCIOPATH!
Charles Meek
Mr. Meek is a hedge fund manager, investment newsletter writer, and founder of the Christian Information Foundation. He can be reached at mail@faithfacts.org
I wish someone would ask Kerry this. If he personally feels that abortion is wrong but because it is the law, will back it. I assume then he would have been against freeing the slaves and would have given aid to the South since prior to the civil war, it was legal. More and more, their mask comes off. Democrats stop buying the line that you are too dumb and could not possibly understand what a fility "Rich" Democrat Politian can do for you. They are in your face with this crap. For God sake, try allowing yourself to be indoctrinated and get educated. Vote Smart, Vote Right
oops, I meant, STOP allowing yourself to be indoctrinated and get educated.......
12) The second amendment is a principle of distribution of power, and that guiding principle of trust in the people matters.
11) Liberals, collectively, willingly, intentionally defended the indefensible Clinton.
10) Protecting the defenseless, defending the value of life is critical to the evolution of a wonderful society.
9) The conservative movement continues to attract amazing talent, from Orin Hatch to Zell Miller. Arnold, to Rudy, to GWB, the pool of honest talent throughout the party is amazing.
8) The firm and wise use of our military has resulted in 2 of our declared enemies being militarily defeated in the course of 18 months, liberating 50 million, and successful election in Afghanistan this week is living proof.
7) Ann Coulter is hot.
6) See above.
5) Liberal hate is not sustainable.
4) Socialism is form of tyranny. Class warfair results in spreading the mysery in an economy that punishes success.
3) Kane matters.
2) Who is John Gahlt ?
1) Bush kicks ass !
A later read
Check the Tagline.
It just so happens that psychologically weak are far more likely to fall prey to this confusion and the bad teachings and institutions that based on this confusion.
The weak, the irresponsible, the confused, are always with us. Sometimes even I have been such myself. Leftist politics is a political malformity that preys on such weak.
The stunning increase in our scientific, technical, industrial and now (computing + information + communication) abilities over the last few centuries has created new breeding grounds for the loss of faith, leading many to think that "we know better now - that old time religion is for old time fogies."
There are some essentials not covered by science, such as truth, morality, beauty, integrity, responsibility. Nothing wrong with science and technology - they are wonderous blessings in many ways. It's just that there is more to life.
Too many think humans know better now - that we can build a better heaven right here on Earth. This is the "bad idea" mentioned above.
Ironic that the very thing on which the weak pour the greatest scorn, faith in a higher Truth, is the source of the strength they need but cannot find.
The essential reason they hate Bush with such venom is that he is a man of Faith. They can smell that a mile away.
Leftist politics is not a psychological sickness, but rather a political sickness, born of a bad idea, that preys on people suffering from a variety of psychological and spiritual ailments.
Not everyone so suffering is a Leftist. But pretty much every Leftist is so suffering.
As for #9, Mr. Meeks is incorrect. Our national motto is not E Pluribus Unum, although it should be. Ufortunately, the 84th congress changed our national motto on June 30, 1956. It is no longer E Pluribus Unum, but In God We Trust.
Deserves a Bttt.
Very good post. Thank you!
<><
Seems more like 12 reasons not be a Democrat. The road not taken is the 12 reasons to be ??
I like your analysis. As I see it, the liberal opposition to the concept of absolute principle and necessary conflict does not stem from reason, but from resentment and a pathological mental attitude. I think perhaps at an early age future liberals reject their parents and the Heavenly authority they represent. B/c they reject the parents and never fully bond with them, they cannot later separate completely, so they spend their lives in a neurotic dance between dependency and rebellion---as you suggested. They rebel against the surrogate, governmental authority b/c their parents are too frightening to challenge. Without love and belief in God, there is no courage.
In line with that I heard someone on a talk radio program propose that the unreasoning, liberal opposition to war may derive from a pathological fear of violence and conflict. It never occurred to me that NYT journalists, for example, reject the war out of simple fear of terrorist retribution, but it makes sense. They long, not for peace, but for the appearance of peace, with all of the real conflict submerged and growing more violent.
I suppose what I am describing is a form of narcissism, but I really don't know the appropriate label. Socialist ideas are certainly a good balm for feelings of inferiority, since they allow one to attribute personal failure to failures of the social system. As the poet says, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity..."
That's just it. The statement does not say whether they are paying a greater percentage of their income or not because it says nothing as to what the total income is. You aren't paying a greater percentage in tax if your income is also greater by at least the same amount. To say, in this case, that the top 2 percent is paying 45 percent of the taxes does not say anything as to whether they are paying the same percentage of their income or not. It's a meaningless and deceptive argument as it stands.
A problem with your second answer: the conservatives already knocked the legs out 20 years ago. Most who were inclined to leave already left.
The Democratic party circa 2004 still can be said to represent 30-40% plus of the US population. Not greatly different than 20 years ago.
The Democratic party isn't going away. It's core constituencies have changed somewhat, but they're still there.
I would think that people would have to be dissatisfied by the status quo before they would be looking for options. What leads you to believe that the core constituencies of the Democratic party circa 2004 are dissatisfied?
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.