Emerging Democrat Civil War

American Thinker ^ | November 14, 2013 | Thomas Lifson

[neverdem]

One leading indicator of a rift in the Democratic Party is a spate of media articles on divisions among Republicans. We were told only a few weeks ago that the Tea Party rift with the Establishment wing of the GOP was going to lead to disaster, and that the only hope was for conservatives to give up their principles. Ted Cruz was the designated villain.

What a difference a month makes!

GOP wounds are healing so well that John McCain is now calling for the "total repeal" of Obamacare, sounding rather like the junior Senator from Texas, while the Democrats are tearing themselves apart over whether to support the Obamacare status quo and sacrifice their careers, or bolt for the door and preserve some hope of re-election.

Josh Kraushaur at the National Journal chronicles "The Emerging Democratic Divide Over Obamacare" and cites three separate rifts:

-- President Obama v. the Clintons.

-- Congressional divide between red-state Democrats and Obama loyalists.

-- The party's Hillary Clinton-Elizabeth Warren split...

[Billthedrill]

I really don't know. An interesting pattern may be taking shape here between the Establishment and, for want of a better word, the purists in both parties. Let me explain.

The Democrat party has been taken over by what we see as radicals, that is, the academic and anti-war Left has managed to marginalize the centrists within. Today we view such luminaries as Hubert Humphrey and Tom Foley as centrists - Foley more than Hube The Cube - but in their day they were very much on the left of the aisle. These days they would be Reagan Republicans. The shift in the Democrat party has been that pronounced.

Within the Republican party, however, post-Reagan has been all Establishment: both Bushes and such grotesqueries as McCain and Romney, no place at the table for a Cruz or a Palin. That split has given us the Tea Party movement, and it is a very real thing.

So it is both parties who are split. The difficulty for the Dems is that their own purists, their radicals, are now the Establishment, somewhat to the discomfiture of the rank and file, who are much happier visualizing themselves as bomb-throwing radicals. In fact, they're suit-wearing apparatchiks and those among them who are bright enough to see it, despise it. They're happier in opposition for a number of reasons, not the least because it carries with it fewer responsibilities for their programs, which are wildly diverse in nature and converge only on a single characteristic: failure. We have self-proclaimed anarchists kissing the throne. It's a beauty of irony for everyone who enjoys that sort of thing.

Within the Republican party the Establishment Pubs are out of power and likely to stay that way out of a sense of accommodation and willingness to get along by going along. Here we have the McCains, the Christies, and yes, the Bushes. And they're looking a bit nervous because the usual American political dynamic for establishment types who are out of power is to replace them. Enter Cruz and Palin. No wonder they're nervous.

In short, this is a time of change for both parties. The Dems may well be inclined to move back toward the center but not until the sitting radicals are disempowered. The Republicans are likely to damage their party most by refusing to go with the zeitgeist - this was the position of the party pre-Reagan. I think that it is useless to look for another Reagan, another heroic central figure. We have what we have, and it isn't really all that bad, if we could stop sticking one another's backs full of knives for awhile.

Two parties in flux, two political civil wars. This is how politics is played out in the center ring. God bless America.

[Finny]

It's our side that's perfected the circular firing squad over the last 12 years or so.

It doesn't look very "circular" to me. Pretty simple dividing lines -- do you buy into the concept of government-controlled health care? Do you buy into the concept of some government "right" to punish people for exercising their freedom making the moral choice to turn away -- or not turn away, their choice -- from open homosexuality? Do you buy into the neccessity for EPA iron-fisted oversight of commerce, energy, food production, in the name of "saving the planet"?

Any "Republican" who buys into any of those concepts and hopes to shape it "Republican," is on one side, the side I'm aiming at. There's not a lot of "circular" going on. You either "get" the premise of limited government conservative, or you don't.

[Finny]

That was fabulously stated. Great post.

[neverdem]

Tom Paine’s Two Radicalisms - And their consequences—for his era and ours

AMERICA’S NEW ENERGY ABUNDANCE CAN REVIVE OUR ECONOMY

This Radioactive Element Could Power the Planet

Congressionally Duped Americans

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[txhurl]

bttt excellent

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[greeneyes]

I think that it is useless to look for another Reagan, another heroic central figure.
****************************************************

I’d settle for one that could explain conservative principles clearly and succinctly enough that even the least informed voter could understand them.

You know - Explanations for Dummies - like the books except verbally in 30 second sound bites.

[Pining_4_TX]

I was stunned to see some of the suggestions for the Dem ticket in 2016. Warren/Sanders and Warren/Grayson

These people are deranged! I guess they picked those folks because Stalin is dead.

[trebb]

He makes it sound as if the Republican Party is trying to unify - won’t happen with the likes of McCain and other unbalanced traitors in the mix. When I hear McCain praising Cruz and Lee and exhorting others to follow their lead, I will reconsider...

[Chode]

[GOPJ]

It's so tense that yesterday Jake Tapper could not find a single Democrat to come on his CNN show The Lead to discuss Obamacare.

It'll get worse -- much worse -- for Demcrats as the negative consequences of Obamacare multiply. Just wait until insurance lapses and people show up at hospitals with no coverage after January first.

If the New York Times was a real newspaper rather than the propaganda arm of the DNC they would look into incentives behind Medicare Advantage.

Hint: Insurance companies get a set amount (were talking about close to $100,000 a year per person) to care of the medical needs of the elderly. Anything Insurance companies don't spend on the sucker - ummm person - they get to keep. Can the New York Times suck-ups figure out the incentives? Then throw in the demographic collapse of the system when boomers move into ages where medical care sky rockets? Nope, didn't think they could... Think ' Madeof - ponzi - suckers - legal kickbacks - graft'...

[diamond6]

Let’s hope they eat themselves up and leave nothing left.

[Qwackertoo]

Juan McCain is getting a little senile. A little late to the party. And no, he isn’t welcome with open arms. And we don’t want him to run in 2016 for President.

Juan, who is the whacko bird now? haha

[lepton]

“I’d settle for one that could explain conservative principles clearly and succinctly enough that even the least informed voter could understand them.

You know - Explanations for Dummies - like the books except verbally in 30 second sound bites.”

---

Except so many have been so far gone that it takes half an hour to get them to where they understand words like ‘budget’.

[lepton]

“I’d settle for one that could explain conservative principles clearly and succinctly enough that even the least informed voter could understand them.

You know - Explanations for Dummies - like the books except verbally in 30 second sound bites.”

---

Except so many have been so far gone that it takes half an hour to get them to where they understand words like ‘budget’.

[Chode]

now they only eat RAT...