[Finished a belated revision of this post]
The truth is always interesting, Mike, and not least of all because it challenges our perception of the world as we see it.
Challenges are good; the human race could never have achieved what we have to this day without challenges and obstacles to overcome. However, some people use challenges to improve themselves and others while other people use challenges to see how many people they can keep under their thumb.
In relation to how poor people keep electing Democrats because Democrats will do good things for the poor, yet the poor that elected the Democrats are consistently doing the worse while the poor in Republican zones are doing better, this may provide us an interesting contrast on power and how it works.
Most people in America were brought up with the notion that power is to be shared: as is proper in a democracy. However, there are other expressions of power, other means of control that people may use. Feudalism is another political system that allows people to focus, channel, and maintain power. In feudalism, there is no way for the poor to decide who their lords are. Lords and aristocrats come from families, wealth, and political power. No lowly peasant can decide the lives and choices of such an upper class for the peasant doesn’t have the right kind of blood or contacts: nor can the poor leave his lord and go to another place, for the poor are locked to their land because of their lack of wealth.
So this is a good thing to remember when conservatives or Republicans, and they do exist if only in their minds, say that by electing Democrats we will be able to make the Republican party come back in a Reagan esque backlash.
These people are indirect products of the Democrat academic re-education camps known as colleges and universities in America. These people often never learned, recognized, or accepted that the Democrat political machine was built around a feudal premise, not a democratic one. Count all the votes is a primary Democrat belief, right? Then why do they have super delegates, who can override the popular votes of voters they are “representing”, voting for Obama, contrary to what the popular vote in the Democrat primary decided? And in the end, they didn’t even count all the delegate voices either; Obama was nominated by acclamation, like most popular dictators were selected in Rome and Greece.
When you elect a Democrat into office, the chances are likely that it is until their death. We got Kennedy, Byrd, and various other Democrats like this in existence. They keep getting re-elected because the people in their states don’t give a damn about term limits or buttering up feudal dynasties.
How many terms would FDR have been re-elected to, had he not died? How many terms would JFK had been re-elected to, had he not died? How many terms would Bill Clinton have been re-elected to, had there been no term limits?
Reagan might have been elected for just as many. Except that Republicans like him do not want power forever. They voluntarily give it up: just like Teddy Roosevelt did. This is because the power and virtue of the Republican party is in the quality of the people in it. Thus it goes up and down depending on who is leading, following, and what not. This is different when your party isn’t based upon the quality of the people in it, but upon some kind of ideological purity. Then, quality doesn’t matter. Whether the quality of a Democrat leader, like Clinton, is high or low, the Democrat party inevitably keeps close to a stable status quo that is more or less unchanged since the beginning of the Democrat party.
The Democrat party has historically been able to recover from the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, and The Cold War. What do I mean by recover? I mean that they hid the bodies of their criminal actions, almost like Ted Kennedy, and blamed it on their political opponents: successfully, I might add.
A party that can convince the current generation that Lincoln was a Democrat, that Democrats fought for Civil Rights against Republicans, and that Republicans are party of racism, foreign adventurism/war, and corruption, is not a party that you can simply elect into power and then replace as casually as you choose toothpastes. When the Democrats gain power, their intent is to hold it for life. Unless and until you have a solution to counter this fact, don’t count on them giving up power due to shame or you grabbing it from them in 4 years.
I’m pretty sure the British just wanted to hold unto the WWII sense of solidarity, purpose, and patriotism for a little bit longer when they dumped Churchill and elected a Labour majority government. But when you look at Britain today, remember what the people who started their nation on the road of Leftism and social revolutionary justice thought and intended.
Even the people who dislike the Democrat party more than they dislike the Republicans, are still following Democrat propaganda on this score. They still talk about how the Democrats have turned their backs on JFK and FDR. But the fact of the matter was, JFK and FDR were not true to the roots of the Democrat party in several ways. In other areas, like race and sacrificing the Cuban patriots at the Bay of Pigs for convenient political points, they were more true to the Democrat party’s roots than the current crop of leaders are. The Democrat party of today is just going back to their roots pre Civil War.
Back when they were going to use character assassination, rumors, and innuendo, to weaken their opponents.
Back when people like McClellan thought he could run foreign policy and sabotage the war effort just because his sympathies were with the Democrats of the South.
Back when the Democrats thought the North would never sustain an effort to wage war just to prevent balkanization and a division of America into the Kurdish North, Shia South, and Sunni middle. This obviously meant to the Democrats that they could provoke Lincoln and the Union and get away with it. What ended up happening was that they sent good men, loyal to the South, to die in the war the Democrats started and believed would be a short and victorious one. After the war, the Democrat power brokers regained power and essentially went back to the status quo, minus slavery. The KKK and disenfranchising black voters in the South were very useful tools in accomplishing the goal of getting back what they lost in the Civil War. Course, the ordinary people of the South were left to rebuild their ruined lives. Tough luck on them, so sayeth the Democrat party.
Every time a national crisis appears on the horizon, whether it be the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, or the Cold War, the Democrats act in the same fashion as they have always acted. For they are just staying true to what has worked for them. Their roots.
A curious thing happened during Reagan’s campaign. Southerners finally found the moral character and strength to break away from the serf bonds of the Democrat party. The sin of the Democrats can no longer be born by Southerners. The South has redeemed themselves past beyond all possible expectations. But the Democrats have not. Have the Democrats promised that they would treat the people they once shackled and abused, that things would be better? Have the Democrats proven that their promise has actual merit by demonstrating a true change of heart and methods? Or have they continued to treat people like tools, to be discarded when they are no longer of use?
No, they have not made that promise. Even if they had made that promise, they have not provided us any reason why we should believe them. When you judge people, like Lieberman, based upon his loyalty, not to America, but to some kind of Democrat ideological purity, you are not someone out to redeem your party.
There is a clear and sharp difference between partisanship and recognizing the historical roots and trends of the American Democrat party. Partisanship is about using minor or major differences between Democrats and Republicans in order to make the opponent party look bad. It is like when Kennedy character assassinated Bork on the Senate floor and then afterwards said “it is just politics, nothing personal”. Partisanship is nothing personal. It is just doing what you have to do to make sure your side comes out smelling like roses and the other side ends up coming out missing a leg or arm or two. In that sense, it is just like war. And just like war, even combatants on either side can get sick of it, not to mention the civilians caught inbetween.
When you recognize the historical roots and trends of the American Democrat party, however, you are not using immediate differences to affect a local change in political fortunes for your party.
That is the difference. Historical trends are either true or false. But partisanship can be true and yet still be partisanship. Your political opponent may be everything you say he is, but the fact that you are saying it in an ad is still helping you and your party at their expense.
What the history of the Democrat party and their crimes against humanity demonstrates to us is not that the Republican party is superior or virtuous. What it demonstrates to us is just how people can be convinced to vote for Democrats that continue to keep them in poverty and misery, generation after generation.
It can be done. It has been done. Bill Clinton may be able to slap a silly happy face on the Democrat party, for awhile, but it always devolves to its roots. Kos and MoveOn/CodePink are not “new things”. They are just more organized than their counter-parts in history. Jefferson, for example, had his Kos. His Kos also turned the character assassins on Jefferson, when Jefferson refused to give his Kos a political appointment. Also, the New York Times is just as bad now as it was back then. There has been no change in their fundamental philosophies. What there has been a change in is the fact that the people have gotten a clue or two as to the going ons of the powerful and wealthy.
The solution to stopping the abuse of human beings by the Democrats is not to elect Democrats and hope they will burn enough villages and towns of their economy and lifeblood to make electing Republicans a must do thing. That is neither ethical nor honorable. It ain’t guaranteed to work, either. So what can be guaranteed?
The solution is to help the Sunnis of Al Anbar switch to a different path. A path devoid of unjust poverty and violence against the innocent. Even though the Sunnis helped to create this problem by inviting in AQ to their towns in order to fight against the corrupt and nasty invader, the Republican dominated US Marine Corps, they have suffered the consequences of their own actions. We cannot call ourselves just when we have the power to help them, but don’t, simply because some of us believe that they need to suffer a little bit more before we can more easily move into power there.
Now do you see why Iraq is so hideous to the Left and the Democrat party? Showing that the weak, the poor, and the disenfranchised can, with the help of America and other just people, overthrow their aristocratic rulers, is a dangerous precedent to set: dangerous for Democrat control of minorities.
The tools Americans have learned in Iraq is the solution to ending the eternal chain of organized criminal violence, poverty, resentment, discrimination, and injustice here in America. You may not be able to use snipers, J-Dams, and M1A1 Abrams tanks against Democrats, but the principles of counter-insurgency apply the same whether that insurgency is a Sunni population controlled by AQ terror or an American urban population/minority controlled by Democrat power and lies.
Once the people under the Democrat yoke see that there are better alternatives, the Democrats will be forced to either release their hold or tighten it. And when Democrats tighten their grip, like they tried to do with Sarah Palin, all of us will finally be able to see the Democrats for what they truly are. Just as the Sunnis saw Al Qaeda for what they were in the Awakening.