Posted on 10/06/2003 11:16:53 AM PDT by lormand
A presidential primary is a way for a political party to make up its mind. Through the process of nominating a candidate, a party figures out its stances on the new issues and what adjustments, if any, it will make in its positions on the old. So with that, through their collective rhetoric and actions, the ten Democratic candidates have arrived at the outlines of a rough philosophy — the credo of the Democrats of '04.
This credo is often nonsensical and hypocritical, but it is clearly discernible. The Democrats of '04 believe:
That wars should be authorized, but never fought.
That the United Nations is the world's last, best hope, and every jot of its writ should always be respected, unless it inconveniences Saddam Hussein.
That nation-building is always a humanitarian and just cause, unless it is undertaken in Iraq.
That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.
That French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is always right.
That President Bush isn't devoting enough resources to the reconstruction of Iraq, and that — in light of his $87 billion aid proposal — he is devoting far too many resources to the reconstruction of Iraq.
That George Bush maneuvered the United States into war in an act of manipulative genius, and also is very stupid.
That [fill in blank with latest conflict here] is another Vietnam.
That the U.S. military is overextended — and should be smaller.
That unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is brought to bear on Israel.
That it is absolutely necessary for the cause of clean government for candidates to abide by the limits set by the presidential public-financing system, unless they — like Kerry and Howard Dean — have enough money not to.
That big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by California Gov. Gray Davis.
That punch-card ballots are a travesty of justice, unless they elect a Democrat.
That groping is a minor offense of no interest to feminists, unless a Republican candidate is the groper.
That independent-counsel investigations are travesties of justice, unless they probe leaks in a Republican White House.
That Bush is bankrupting the federal government, but is a tightfisted ogre for countenancing only a $400 billion new prescription-drug benefit.
That Bush is fiscally profligate, but isn't spending enough on education, "first responders," health care or anything else not called "defense."
That the nation cannot afford the pending retirement of the baby boomers, but the baby boomers should get more benefits for their pending retirements.
That Bush is responsible for an economic downturn that began before he was elected and that Clinton is responsible for an economic recovery that began before he was elected (here at last — a kind of consistency!).
That small-business owners are the heart of the economy unless they succeed, at which point they become "the rich."
That it is evil to be rich, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz.
That it is wrong to be a millionaire, unless you got that way by suing people.
That the sons of the upper-crust Northeastern elite are always and everywhere out-of-touch, unless they are named Howard Dean.
That it is unseemly to mix military matters with politics, but you should vote for FORMER GENERAL Wesley Clark, and salute when you do so.
That a deranged candidate should not be elected president, unless he is named Bob Graham.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in an urban public-school system.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in the womb.
That the Patriot Act is denying Americans their liberties, and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, or Bob Graham should be elected president after having voted for it.
That deposing John Ashcroft would be preferable to deposing Mullah Omar.
That library records are sacred, but the Constitution — a "living document" subject to manipulation by judges — is not.
Madeline Allbright was on Medved's show pushing her book, 3 Oct.
When asked by a caller would she surrender any of our sovereignty she first said no -- BUT, she kept talking and revealed that she would give away our sovereignty IF IT MADE US SAFER. People give up rights to have police protection, she said!
That is why I despise today's Democrat party and the left in general. They run on traditional issues -- though now with a strong emphasis on hate with the purpose of destroying ANOTHER wartime administration. But despite their election on "traditional" issues they view their election as an opportuntity to dilute our sovereignty and to entrust our inalienable rights to international police and courts.
Today's Democrats have moved beyond being Americans. They are internationalists proposing a "new social compact" between the world's progressive governments and the masses. Actually, the compact may be among the governments, to hell with the masses. After all people of this ilk murdered 100 million of their fellow citizens last century.
THAT IS TREASON against our sovereignty and Constitution -- even though some Democrats feeeeeeeel it is best for America. Such things should not result from the outcome of general elections. They should be decided by means that clearly express their purpose.
That Seperation of Church and State applies for Christians and Jews only and not muslims. If it does apply to muslims, it's discrimination.
But media overkill might do it.
My ninety-year old mother called Sunday. She has been a loyal New Deal Democrat for her entire voting life. But...she's had it. The impeachmenet and the Broaddrick rape claim caused her to change her registration. Not to Republican, mind you, but to the respectability of Independent (she lives in Kansas and you can so register).
But, now, she's been driven over the edge by the media and "their lies about Iraq". She has decided that President Bush deserves her vote. And the media deserve being ignored, since they can't be trusted.
I should also note that she lives in a small town, spends no more than an hour a week on the internet...and all her news comes from the broadcast networks. Fortunately, she knows a liar when she hears one.
I don't know that I've ever heard her as worked up about politics as she was on Sunday...
It's an anecdotal sample of one. But I find it very encouraging...
Is your mom up and about now?
Writing for National Review Online, Rich Lowry talks about the way that the current herd of Democratic presidential hopefuls, through their debates and their efforts to pander to what some have called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party", have begun to codify the basic philosophy and program advocated by the most leftwing portion of this nation.
He comments that "This credo is often nonsensical and hypocritical, but it is clearly discernible." And he then lists a series of bullet points which seem to make no sense. On one level he's trying to be humorous (and succeeds) but like all great humor there's a strong element of truth in what he says.
But I'm not so sure that many of them actually are nonsensical or internally contradictory. What's rather going on is that they flow quite naturally from a combination of Transnational Progressivism and the mean green meme. In essence, the deep ideology is a combination of neo-Marxism, idealism, elitism (i.e. anti-populism), post-nationalism and, it turns out, a form of compassionate neo-racism. Competition is bad, cooperation is good. Greed is bad, altruism is good. Inequality (of results) is bad, equality (of results) is good. Motives are important, and good acts induced by bad motives are worse than bad acts induced by good motives.
Transnational Progressivism is an international movement, with adherents all over the world, but most of its power is concentrated in Europe and North America. In the US, its adherents are the most influential part of the activist left wing of the Democratic party (when they're not abandoning it outright to support Nader and the Greens) and it is they who the Democratic presidential candidates are trying to convince. So the emerging consensus among those candidates is something of a codification of Tranzi hot-buttons.
Their long term program at the highest level diplomatically is post-nationalism.
If nations can be deemphasized, then the newly-enlightened citizens of the world will no longer be willing to accept such things, and this will necessarily mean there will be no more wars, no more exploitation, no more misery. By deemphasizing nations and nationalism, a world utopia becomes possible.
It is the most powerful nations where nationalism represents the most profound danger to this idealistic new world order. When there is a single superpower whose people strongly identify with their nation and are proud of its achievements, then they represent a profound threat to the process of creating a post-nationalist one-world utopia.
The new utopia is clearly right, but it cannot be brought into being by honest participation in democracy. The enlightened Tranzi elite will have to work on establishing this new utopia subtly, surreptitiously, in small steps, without ever admitting how each such step supports their true goal. They cannot let the incorrect but unavoidable opposition of the majority prevent it.
The Tranzis have to operate within the realm of democracy now, and so they have to make arguments for candidates and policies they favor which are calculated to influence the masses. But those public arguments are rhetorical weapons which have nothing to do with the real program. It doesn't matter to the Tranzis whether they're hypocritical; the only thing that matters is whether they might be effective at deceiving the masses into voting the way the Tranzis want them to vote.
The Tranzis don't believe in democracy, and see no problem with trying to subvert it to achieve their ends. It's a barrier but not an insurmountable one, as long as they're crafty and patient. They will use whatever means are available within it to defeat their opponents and elect their allies. This isn't inconsistent, it's just good tactics. -- Steven Den Beste
Thought y'all might appreciate this. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is the Transnationalist Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party.
Transnational Progressivism is an international movement, with adherents all over the world ... In the US, its adherents are the most influential part of the activist left wing of the Democratic party
The enlightened Tranzi elite will have to work on establishing this new utopia subtly, surreptitiously, in small steps, without ever admitting how each such step supports their true goal
I think the antidote is a full-court press. Whenever these Tranzis make a move, force them to justify it out in the open. For example, it's been said in FR as a joke (I think) that we should impeach justices who cite international jurisprudence in their opinions. But that is a good example of something Tranzi being done non-democratically that can at least be roundly criticized.
I will google for Mr. Steven Den Beste's writings.
America's job is to smoke out the Tranzis. Demand that Dems spell out their positions on these matters. But.. wait, they lie. That's what they do.
Plan B. We've got to encourage our(?) Congress to investigate in the manner of patriots like the members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Start wih the "anti-war" crowd. This will drive the left bonkers, ballistic! it will force some of these chicken hawk revolutionaries out of their offices and into the streets. Their blantant acts of violence and treason can be used to crush the first ones. Then repeat until we get 'em all if there is the will among Americans in Washington and in state and local governments.
Plan C. A Man on Horseback, patriot-dictator. Every two-hundred-year-old nation is entitled to at least one.
Plan D. Civil war?
Look back in history to the caning of Senator Sumner of Massachussetts by Congressman Brooks of South Carolina. History does not repeat itself exactly, but I see disturbing parallels between the 1850's and this decade. If the incivility and lack of comity in our politics continues and gets worse there will be blood.
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.