The Democratic mind
Published October 29, 2013
by Thomas Mills, Politics NC, October 28, 2013.
Yesterday, a letter-to-the-editor in the News & Observerresponded to Rob Christensen’s column from last week, “A look inside the GOP mind.” The author asks what’s inside the Democratic mind. He says he can’t understand what Democrats are thinking or how they believe Barack Obama has done anything good.
Let me help you out.
We believe in fairness. Most of us believe the income disparity that is greater now than at any time in the past 100 years has negative consequences for our economy and our citizens. We believe that Reaganomics shifted the tax burden from the wealthy and corporations onto the middle class. As a result, we have aconcentration of wealth and the gap between rich and poor is widening. The tax increases on the wealthy that President Obama introduced are just a first step toward addressing this problem.
We believe in a strong social safety net. As the wealthiest country in the world, we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to ensure no one falls too far into poverty. We also believe that health care should be part of that equation, as it is in every other industrialized nation. Most of us would prefer some sort of single-payer plan that would look more like Medicare but grudgingly accept Obamacare as the compromise we have to live with.
Most Democrats are capitalists who believe that the free market creates jobs and economic prosperity. However, we also believe that an unregulated market stifles economic mobility, threatens our environment and leads to social unrest. While Republicans worry about the government picking winners, we worry about the impact of the market’s losers.
Government is the only vehicle available to mitigate the harmful effects of an unregulated free market. We don’t like big government; we like responsible government. Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of such regulation, though many on my side of the ideological spectrum wish it was more powerful.
We also believe that diversity is not only healthy but a defining feature of our country and society. We don’t want the government to encroach on our right to worship as we please or love who we choose but we want the government to protect us from discrimination because of factors beyond our control. Hence, we are the party that supports civil rights, gay marriage, the right to choose and freedom of religion.
Contrary to what the letter writer says, we don’t believe that everyone who opposes Barack Obama is racist. However, we believe there are a substantial number of people who are and that the GOP welcomed them with open arms. So we apologize if we sometimes confuse the non-racists with the racists in your ranks. You would be smart to disown them now. It might hurt your electoral chances in the short-term but it would probably help you in the long run.
There’s more, like believing in science, a more progressive tax code, the power of green energy, the benefits of organized labor, but these are my fundamental beliefs. I hope they better help you understand the Democratic mind. As Sun Tzu says in the Art of War, “Know your enemy.”
October 29, 2013 at 8:09 am
TP Wohlford says:
Let's see...
Here in NC, Dems have believed in:
- Extermination, enslavement, and expulsion of native people resulting in tens of thousands of deaths
- Enslavement of black people
- a Civil War, causing devastation and massive loss of life, to protect slavery.
- A bloody military coup that established a 100-year reign of power, where at least one river ran red with the blood of mostly black people.
- Jim Crow laws. Which was the spark behind the coup -- the Dems wanted Jim Crow laws, which the GOP didn't want to do.
- entanglement with the KKK, and hence, their actions, including lynchings
- massive sterilization of poor/black people, long after the rest of humanity saw the horror of eugenics.
And that is just here in NC.
Most of what this writer says is easily countered by quotes from Dems, Dem leaders, and Dem media outlets. One can say that many Dems want to believe these things, but given the history, even if their current intentions are good, can someone understand why we're a bit leery? For instance, if we listen to Barry Obama in 2008, and compare what he's done since... tell me again what this writer is saying?
October 29, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Norm Kelly says:
I find it very interesting that the first editorial was by a liberal/Democrat trying to define the mind of a Republican/conservative. Now we have an admitted liberal/Democrat/socialist trying to define the mind of a Democrat. They want to be able to define both. They refuse to accept input from a Republican as to what we actually believe and insist that their idea of what/who we are is more accurate. Then we get this post to define the mind of a Democrat that has as much truth about Democrats as the Democrat editorial had about the Republican mind. Both are skewed toward a better impression of Democrats. Neither contained much in the way of truth. Both contained ideas that liberals want their base to believe about Republicans. And, it appears, they hope to sway some moderates in the process.
'We believe in fairness'. Or more precisely, Dems believe in THEIR DEFINITION of fairness NOT actual fairness. Fair would be to allow people, all people, to succeed as their ability determines, as their work ethic dictates. Fair is NOT having racial quotas in place that removes all semblance of fairness, that removes all requirements for qualification. Actual fairness would mean that people who show initiative would be rewarded with a better pay than someone who simply shows up.
But because of Democrat interference and the minimum wage, everyone MUST be treated the same in order to NOT be punished by the federal government or accurately described as the central planners. Income disparity is another straw man created by liberals/socialists. What's the best way for someone to move out of the poor class and into the rich class? According to liberals, it's through the central planners punishing 'the rich'. But this prevents people from moving out of poor or middle class into the rich class. Barry once said that he didn't want to punish rich people, he wanted to level the playing field so that others could move into the rich class. Except by punishing rich people it doesn't benefit poor people. First, it's the central planners forcibly removing people from the rich class. Second, it prevents people from moving into the rich class because once they get there the central planners will start to punish them also. So punishing rich people has the opposite effect that socialists claim to have. But, like every good Democrat, it just feels good even if it doesn't make sense.
Mr. Obama introduced a tax increase on wealthy people as 'just a first step' toward changing the problem with income disparity. What concerns conservatives, and honestly anyone with the ability to think, is what is step 2? Without defining what step 2 is, the rest of us are scared as hell, with good reason. If it's acceptable for the central planners to steal money from rich people, thereby forcing them into a lower class, what's the next plan? How does this help the poor class? How does it help someone in the 'poor' class to move into the middle class? Or is the idea simply to punish rich people? Show conservatives anywhere else in the world that your socialist ideas have actually benefited the poor or middle class. Give specific examples where socialism has improved life for the majority. The only examples you can provide will show that socialism drives everyone to the middle class, at best. The only people who are better off under socialism are politicians and 'the elite' class of political buddies. Kinda like Solyndra, unions, Fisker Motors.
We do have an obligation to insure that no one falls too far into poverty. Beyond that reasonable point, it becomes YOUR obligation not MY obligation. Beyond that point, if it bothers you that darn much, take some money out of YOUR pocket and make a difference. Stop taking money out of MY pocket to take care of what you believe is YOUR obligation. I'll take care of what I want to fund with MY money, you take care of what you want to fund using YOUR darn money. When you earn it, you spend it. When I earn it, leave your grubby, stinkin' hands off MY money! I promise not to try to steal money from you at gunpoint. Sounds like a good deal, but is opposite of your SOCIALIST beliefs.
When you were growing up, did your mom ever use the line about 'just because everyone else is doing it'? Just because every other industrialized nation has sucked down socialized medicine doesn't mean it's good for anyone. And, by the way, you can refer to them as 'industrialized' but the more important adjective to describe these nations is 'socialist'. It is their socialist nature that turned them toward 'single payer health care', not their industrialized nature. Health care is better in this country than just about any where else in the world. More people have access to health care in the US than anywhere else in the world. Why would we want to follow their example instead of showing them how their programs could be improved to be as good as ours? Why does Mr. Obama look at the failures of European countries and choose to imitate them rather than find out what they did wrong and do exactly the opposite? Because at heart Mr. Obama is more of a socialist than Mr. Clinton ever was, and we all know Bill was a card-carrying socialist. Mr. Obama believes in socialism so much that he is incapable of seeing that it is a failure, can not actually work, and even with him in charge it will fail here. At least you were honest in your post when you admit that Obamacare is insufficient for you and that the plan is to move the US toward a full socialized medicine plan - what you call 'single payer' because it sounds better than 'socialized medicine'.
In fact, most Democrats in elected office are NOT capitalists. The elected Democrats believe in regulation more than they believe in capitalism. Just listen to some of the statements coming out of Washington Democrats. First they want to completely take over the health care industry in the country - Obamacare is only the first step. Some have suggested taking over the oil/gas business, with their eye on the energy industry in total. Some, I believe, have suggested that banking should not be in the private sector either. So where are the Democrats who believe in capitalism? Maybe in fly-over country but certainly NOT in elected office.
Republicans worry about government picking winners & losers because that's what Democrats want the power to do. Democrats try to justify taking money from one group of people/businesses to give it to other people/businesses. All with the 'intent' of stimulating some industry, some community while actually deciding which companies should succeed and using the profits of other businesses to make sure the 'chosen' company survives. Look at Apple & Facebook as 2 examples. I could throw in GE also, but I despise them so much I can't even type about them. Apple pays zero federal income tax, gets a 'refund' from the central planners, yet they are loved by the Democrats. Does it have anything to do with Apples support of Democrat politicians? Facebook pays virtually zero in federal
income taxes. Yet which Democrat hasn't praised them and their business model? Don't know about Facebook's political donations, but it would be a shocker if they weren't huge Dem contributors/supporters. Sometimes, there are losers in the market. This is normal. Nothing Democrats do can change this. When Solyndra failed, having the feds step in didn't save them. When a business is bad, it's bad and should be allowed to go out of business. No government agency should step in to prevent the failure. And Solyndra is only an excellent example, not a unique example. Fisker, or is it Fiskar, Motors is another example. Politicians have enough trouble doing their own job, history shows they are god-awful venture capitalists. So, yes, Republicans/conservatives are deathly afraid of politicians picking winners & losers, but this is EXACTLY what Democrats do and want to continue to be able to do.
I haven't heard a single Republican/conservative say that some markets shouldn't be regulated. But there is a difference between regulated and controlled. And the other Republican/conservative belief is that regulation should happen at the most local level possible. Democrats/elected socialists believe regulation should be heavy-handed, all-encompassing, and at the central planner level. Washington Democrats have shown that they believe they know better than anyone at any state level and continue to take control away from states and concentrate it in Washington. This is unarguable. And the person who posted this editorial does nothing to dispute this. The author actually reinforces this attitude.
Mr. Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is just another layer of central planner control added to an already existing Consumer Protection Agency. When the CPA was shown to be incapable of doing it's job, did the central planners do away with it and implement another group that would replace it with the authority to do it's job or the people to do it's job? Nope. Once again, the central planners/Democrats/socialists in Washington ADDED another program altogether, with it's own rules, it's own budget, it's own people. Adding to the burden born by taxpayers.
The Democrat party isn't concerned about civil rights. They are the party of the KKK. They are the party that fought to keep slavery legal. They are the party that 'uses' blacks as a means to their ends, not as a means to the ends of the needs of blacks. Democrats belief in the right to choose is only acceptable when you choose what they demand you choose. Otherwise, your thinking is wrong and MUST be adjusted.
Actually, Democrats DO believe that everyone who opposes Mr. Obama is a racist. It's their words not mine. Just listen to kindly, politically-correct socialists sometime. (they call themselves Democrats, but I'm more honest about them than they are!) Every time a conservative stands against Obama, specifically states their objection is policy based, it takes only seconds for some idiot Democrat to step in front of a microphone or take to the floor in congress to declare said conservative a racist. Not just sometimes. Every time. Just listen to them. Continue watching MSNBC and CNN and you too will believe that ALL conservatives are racist and the ONLY reason they oppose Obama is because he is a (mostly) black man. No other reason is given ANY credence either in the media or with Washington Democrats.
A progressive tax code can be shown to do nothing to level the playing field, but you've already used this as an example of what's 'good' about Democrats. Power of green energy? But only if it's controlled by the central planners? Socialist countries in Europe have tried this and they are all backing away because it has proven to be an expensive boondoggle. The private sector is so much better at making changes like this than any government. But regardless of how hard your plan fails, the answer is and will continue to be that not enough money was thrown at the problem. Never admit that your plan was doomed to fail before it was implemented. Complain that Republicans stood in the way of spending sufficient funds on your plan to actually make it work. If we taxpayers
would just let you spend even more money on it, you assure us it will work.
The benefits of organized labor? For who? The Democrat party? Actually this part is true. But is organized labor good for the majority of those represented? Show examples. I once worked in a union shop. Just before I started working there a strike had been settled. The original offer from management was something like 15 cents an hour raise over a 4 or 5 year period (as I recall). The settlement, after months of strike, amounted to 10 cents per hour in the first year, 1 cent per hour in the second year, 1 cent per hour in the 4th year. For a total loss of 3 cents per hour over a 5 year period, on top of not getting paid while on strike. (the cents may be off slightly cuz it's been so long, but the impact is right) What was the advantage for the laborer? None. But the union got more money, more stewards, and therefore Democrats got more money from their union supporters. Organized labor didn't work for Boeing when they built a plant in South Carolina did it? Even though the plant in SC was a non-union shop, Boeing was still stifled from expanding their business by a labor union. Would the labor union in Washington be better off if their employer were allowed to make even more profit? Probably. But the only thing the union bosses could see is that they would not have power in SC. They weren't opposed to Boeing expanding business. They were simply opposed to Boeing being allowed to do business in a state that didn't require their presence. And what was Obamas response? The central planners were hell-bent on preventing a PRIVATE SECTOR business from expanding because it MIGHT hurt their 'organized labor' buddies and supporters. (MIGHT because no proof was presented, no proof was available.)
Every one of your fundamental beliefs hinders my freedoms. Every one of your fundamental beliefs requires sacrifice from me & people like me in order to support your fundamental beliefs. Every one of your fundamental beliefs is bad for our national debt. Every one of your fundamental beliefs is bad for my grandchildren. But you still don't understand why I am opposed to your plans coming to fruition. You are still convinced that I am opposed to Obama's vision for America because I'm a white racist. The only part of this that is true is that I'm white. Our country became great because of our freedoms. Our country did NOT become great because of central planners. It will NOT remain great because of good central planners. It WILL be doomed because of central planning.
Prove me wrong by showing examples where central planners have improved life for the majority. Instead of complaining about Republicans/conservatives being racists, show us examples of how your plan will work. We can show you specific examples of how & why & where OUR plans have worked. But you reject those facts. Is that because they are facts and facts don't fit the socialist agenda? Don't try to convince me your plan is right by showing me that my plan is wrong. Convince me that your plan is right by showing me examples of your plan being implemented and actually having worked. I believe you don't show specific examples because they don't exist. Please prove me wrong. Prove conservatives wrong. Prove that your way works. Then, and only then, will conservatives give up on our way and accept your way. We don't drink kool-aid just for the fun of it. Democrats and unions drink kool-aid for the fun of it. Non-thinking, dependent people drink the kool-aid. So, digging up facts is something darn few Democrats know how to do, apparently have no skill to do, but try it and see how well we react. We won't hold our breath though. Smurfiness is not pretty. Conservatives don't look good in blue!
