The changing face of the Democratic Party
I’ve often stated that I used to be a Democrat, but no more. Now I belong to neither party, and I don’t think I ever will again, except perhaps for strategic registration before a primary.
I sometimes wonder how someone like Joe Lieberman does it, though. How does he stay affiliated with a party that has moved so far away from him, a party in which he now appears to be so very alone?
Power has something to do with it, I suppose. He probably wields more power staying with the Democrats than he would as just another Republican, and a RINO at that. He stays as a sort of gadfly to his party, an annoying voice pestering it to listen and to change.
Today’s essay by Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal suggests a further and related reason he stays. He sees himself as carrying on a proud and hoary tradition in the Party, that of Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK, one he wishes to revive.
This was the Democratic Party of his youth—and mine:
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in ”“ a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
Lieberman sees this change as having begun in the late 60s as a response to Vietnam. I agree. He also sees the Clinton years as a semi-reversal of this trend; I’m not at all sure I agree about that. But I most heartily agree with his assessment of the post-9/11 and especially the post-Iraq War Democratic Party, whose posture has surprised me, although in retrospect I should have expected it.
Lieberman’s piece is entitled “Democrats and Our Enemies.” Its thrust is that the Democratic Party has adopted the idea that our enemies are only against us because we have somehow offended, and that if we make nice to them they will turn reasonable and tractable. He cautions his own party to heed the words of a former Democrat Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who said “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”
Will he be heard? I think the answer is, “Fat chance.” Now that the Democrats have committed themselves to nominating Barack Obama, they have embraced the exact wing of the party about which Lieberman warns.
But I think the Democrats are not really so reluctant to make themselves offensive to their enemies, after all. The thing is: how do they define “enemies?” It’s become more and more apparent as time goes on that many Democrats today and most of their leaders (i.e. Pelosi and Reid), consider the Republicans to be a greater enemy than any country or group on earth—with the possible exception of oil companies.
How else to explain the dismissal of the surge as a failure when it was first proposed and before it was even implemented? And the continuing refusal to acknowledge facts such as these, the “powerful and accelarting” success in Iraq?
It’s not only the media that is ignoring the news from Iraq that clearly doesn’t fit the agenda, it’s the Democratic Party who, along with the MSM, has decided “the [Iraq] clock stopped back in 2003.”
Actually, I disagree. Their clock actually stopped back in 2006, at the height of the terrorist-inspired insurgency, and before the surge. That’s the “narrative” that favors the Democrats the most, and they’re going to stick to it. Fortunately for the Democrats and unfortunately for the country and the Iraqi people, few Americans have been informed that the story line has changed.
Re many or even most Democrats considering Republicans a bigger enemy than Al Qaeda or the mullahs of Iran: agreed.
My take on it is that the Democrats consider America invulnerable. Thus it doesn’t matter what we do re Bin Laden or the mullahs. OTOH, Republicans and FDR/Truman/JFK Democrats do not consider America invulnerable. I grew up with too many refugees from Communism and Nazism to have a sanguine view of the political life : no one who fled totalitarianism could consider anything to be invulnerable.
Neo:
Amen sister!
I too was a “Classic Democrat” and even worked for “blush” JFK when I was in Harvard Grad School. And “BLUSH” LBJ in 1964 in California.
Then along came a series of disasters: Humphery, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and a couple of guys and gals named Clinton. I left the Party around 1968 when they poo-poo-ed the Czechoslovakian Invasion. I held my breath, voted for Carter “BIG BLUSH” twice due to residual party loyalty – not intelligence, and finally crossed the Rubicon with Regan in 1980.
Still registered as Independent and not looking to change.
“Politics is a mug’s game.” Ain’t it true, Mabel…
Perhaps it is because they preferred the glamour of radical chic to lunch buckets. And then, there were so many activists who were able to turn social concerns into paying jobs, but at the price of ever escalating demands and ever escalating resentments that those demands weren’t met.
I hate to say it, and again don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but how would Democratic Party positions over the last 40 or so years differ in substance from ones that the KGB would have espoused? The same thing is true for most of academia, and for Hollywood. It’s hard to see much difference. All three groups consistently plump for policies and viewpoints that damage or denigrate the US and benefit our enemies.
I don’t believe that any of their positions (of any of the three groups) is sincerely held, but merely adopted for tactical reasons, namely to promote collectivism of one stripe or another. How else to explain left-wing support for anti-American groups with nominally antithetical views (e.g., feminists and left-wing atheists defending Islamic fundamentalists)? Only one thing in common: anti-Americanism.
Is it just me, or do others see things that way as well?
I think gringo has a point. Democrats have the luxury of imagining that Republicans are the real enemy because they also imagine that the America is fundamentally invulnerable to enemies beyond our shores. Much of this comes from an ignorance of history, a recent theme on this blog.
If that confidence in American invulnerability is threatened again, as it was 9-11, I think we would see a big shift in the country.
Typical …..
Children and conservatives are very susceptible to ‘bogey man’ yarns of all manners and if they reckon that adults believe as well, such narratives take on a certainty an infant or republican cannot discharge as daydream or boner-producing fantasies. The shock and strain twisted by this progression is life-long, with the hopeless dupe doing all within their influence not to distress a god, understanding with exact certainty, the penalty of doing so. The babyhood distress of accepting as true-life, demonic imagery and unholy places normally becomes lighter with maturity. The recently formed neurotic based conduits containing the information about hell, evildoers out to get you, and other diverse malevolent entities linger, at the very smallest amount, as an fundamental part of their limited but unconscious ideas.
This stimulated dread of a hellfire is so enormous and so unsettling of common sense and normal thinking, that any scheme to elude it becomes suitable. Blind horror perverts, bends and transforms time-honored balanced ethical deliberations. A self-centered mind-set is produced resulting from hysterical longing for private escape from perdition. Defective assessments by conservative or backward individuals can and often are prejudiced by a saving-from-hell doctrine as a replacement for levelheaded analysis. The penalty of politicians making edicts or granting funding whilst beneath the hex of GOP hell-phobic-delusion are obvious.
seems to be a problem posting. the system says ithas the post, but not post appears.
sigh.
well maybe they dont worry about the enemies far away because they are the enemy within?
search for this article, every time i put the link in the post doesnt appear. but the system says it has it.
the article is very interersting.
Ted Kennedy was a ‘collaborationist’ by Herbert Romerstein at human events
since i cant seem to post the link, here is an excerpt…
There are some important reports found in Soviet archives, after the collapse of the communist dictatorship, that provide an interesting insight into the character of the senior Senator from Massachusetts. One of the documents, a KGB report to their bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that “In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship” between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Senator John Tunney. KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney’s firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow’s Izvestia in June 1992. Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy’s opinion that “nonsense about ‘the Soviet military threat’ and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by (President Jimmy) Carter, (National Security Advisor Zbigniew) Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.” Kennedy offered to speak out against President Carter on Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter he made public speeches opposing President Carter on this issue. This document was found in KGB archives by Vasiliy Mitrokhin, a courageous KGB officer, who copied documents from the files and then defected to the West. He wrote about this document in a February 2002 paper on Afghanistan that he released through the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center. In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy’s concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan. The KGB reported “in Kennedy’s opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the president’s opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda.” Kennedy offered to “undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population.” Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of “arming himself with the Soviet leader’s explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S.”
We have seen the enemy and he is us. pogo
Occam’s Beard,
i see it too… and i put up information on it. all the facts i have are verifiable and i ignore teh tin hats.
you dont realize that the tin hats are part of the 5th column too. or havent you noticed that they are fed stuff that makes them have information against the US most of the time…
you are 100% right as to the alignment. if you go through history books and archives as well as CONFIRMED defectors, you will find out that we are so close to a ‘state change’ that you wouldnt be able to sleep at night..
and the tin hatters have consistently blown things so far out of proportion that their status defends the truth against examination.
your correct in your assesment. it matters not what labels something gets, what matters is the materials actions and movements. if you want someone gone, how they are gone is not a consideration as that would leave you anything that accomplishes it as a valid possibility.
well, it might get interesting as the man who the article above on ted kennedy (and if you read state documents things are confirmed there too, but again, not reported in the news), is about to detail similar stuff with obama.
the circus has come to town.
hey Carl, be careful, a lot of leftists are starting to eat their words as a lot of the truth is comig out…
and it doesnt match the myths of the left at all…
your walking in fantasy land, because most of your historical points were settled by ideology and therefore have never been updated.
meanwhile, lots and lots is getting out. soon NYU will be publishing what they find in the CPUSA files… mitrokhen is out… Venona shows that McCarthy was correct… we now have confirmation since hte program was stopped many years after mitrokhen… we have golytsyn, sejna, oleg, we even have diaries and stuff where the leaders told their deals.
either a great switch will happen, or potentially a cleaning house… but either way, its not going to be pretty
here is a clip of obama telling us how what he will do.
52 Seconds of Obama Unilaterally Disarming America
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/52_seconds_of_obama_unilateral.html
In 52 seconds, he rattles off what an Obama presidency would mean for our national defense; slowing down of existing programs to build new weapons, cutting “tens of billions” of dollars in “wasteful” spending, scrapping missile defense completely, and setting up an “independent defense priority review board” (you can imagine the anti-defense liberals sitting on that board) to make sure we don’t waste any money building “unnecessary” weapons.
That’s not all. Obama wishes upon a star for a “nuclear free world” and to that end, he will not allow any new designs for nukes nor will be build any new ones. He wants to talk to the Russians about re-targeting our missiles and “deep cuts” in our nuclear arsenal.
This is dangerous and stupid. Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term (but it looks good politically because of the money saved up front). He calls the anti-missile system “unproven” – and thank God for that because the only way to “prove” that it works is to shoot down an incoming missile. Recent successes have been incredible – shooting down a target traveling at Mach 7 is no simple matter. And almost every test shows improvement.
Why scrap the system now after spending tens of billions of dollars and when we are close to success? Lunacy!
I shudder when I think his 1960’s style liberal friends have a go at the defense budget. Considering the fact they don’t think we face any threats, we’ll be lucky to keep the Army band.
Then there’s his pie in the sky notion of a nuclear free world. Everyone wishes for that. Heck, I wish that the moon was made of Velveeta cheese but wishing will never make it so. And somehow, I just can’t picture him and Putin on the same page about much of anything. Obama, the charmer, the ideologue and Putin, the aggressive, canny, ruthless autocrat.
Maybe we can convince a grown up to hold his hand during those negotiations.
In effect, Obama wants to gut the military to make sure we never go to war again. He has said as much on the campaign trail. And if a time ever comes, God forbid, where we would find it necessary to project our power to the far flung corners of the earth in order to protect Americans or American interests under an Obama presidency, I fear the military would be forced to tell him that it wouldn’t be possible.
Obama is McGovern, Carter, and John Kerry all rolled into one when it comes to maintaining and improving our defenses. He would be a disaster as president and this video shows very clearly why.
Do you commenters here note contemporary Democrats pointing to particular books, authors, pamphlets, articles etc. as the source(s) of their political thoughts or philosophies? Whether in conversation or speeches, books, or articles they write, do you hear or see instances such as these? I wonder whether I just don’t notice such things out of bias or boredom but the fact remains I can’t put my finger on any instances. Can you lot help me by citing cases from your own memories? Or are you in the same position I’m in?
Exit polls indicate, generally, more mature dims voting for Hillary, less mature for Hussein, the statistic speaks volumes…
I agree with “Perfected”
Exit polls show Hillary is destroying Obama among voters without a college education. That explains a lot.
Amanda Reckonwith Says:
“Exit polls show Hillary is destroying Obama among voters without a college education. That explains a lot.”
Memorizing names / terms and dates are called education… most of which are promptly forgotten btw…
I could write down some logic and thinking rules… that would take less than three pages… that if followed, would lead to being a rational thinker…
This pedestal of ‘education’ would fall into one of the rules… it is an appeal to authority.
China’s “cultural revolution” was famous for the adoration of youth and immaturity of it’s participants, generally victimizing the mature and most educated, similar to the pattern of the Cambodian genocide, and frequently typical of left-wing and fascist movements. “Memorizing” is a very limited and narrow definition of “education”, while “three pages” could not possibly do justice to a mature concept of depth in logic, thinking and rationality; The “pedestal” of education is less an appeal to authority, than of respect founded in substance and depth.
Here’s a lesson in logic that doesn’t even take half a page:
When comparing two different things, their likeness is discerned by noting matches in their defining characteristics, not the similarities of ephemera.
The relative youth of China’s cultural revolutionairies is shared by movements as disparate as the Enlightenment, the Republican Congress of 1994 and Japanese pop music scene of the 2000s. And, yes, apparently, it’s a trait it also shares with Obamanationists.
China’s cultural revolutionaries were also ruthless, irrational, emotionally desperate, spiritually bereft and violent. These are the traits that define them and, obviously, make them polar opposites with the Enlightment and, yes, Obamanationalists.
Obamanationists are clearly advocating acquiescence in the double standards, violence and dishonesty of left-wing and Islamic despotism and culture. Clearly irrational, emotionally desperate, and spiritually bereft they are unable to grasp and respect the nature of the reality of the violence inherent in authentic confrontation with despotic cultures. It is a world of make believe, where compromise of core values and appeasement are rationalized as “negotiation” in order to avoid authentic confrontation.
“compromise of core values and appeasement are rationalized as “negotiation” in order to avoid authentic confrontation.”
And as I’m sure you’ll agree, China’s cultural revolutionists never compromised their core values. Authentic confrontation and total destruction of the enemy was their stock in trade. Negotiations were, to them, for the weak.
Sdferr Says:
Do you commenters here note contemporary Democrats pointing to particular books, authors, pamphlets, articles etc. as the source(s) of their political thoughts or philosophies?
ah, i will assume that your not joking. However, start with russeau, nitsche, marx, engels, then throw in marcuse, brown, adorno. there is actually a massive list that makes up the entirety of this area of thought.
however, marxism is not falsifiable. i call it an adobo ideology, like feminism (a child of it now), its supposed to make everything better (through socialism).
from their i would then suggest reading the stories and tales of those who discovered they were usefil idiots and then turned around. start with neo’s articles on her conversion. while not the same as a useful idiot waking up to their being used, its none the less very similar.
and to get an idea of the kinds of things that you can read today that then came out of all that otehr stuff (and much of it created by fellow travelers. often they are tagged and paid for the purpose. otherwise who would want histories that are not real histories?)
go the the belmont club and they have a nice piece there called “half the battle”.
fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/half-battle.html
its a classic example of modern revisionist (stalinist) history. there is actually a recent parade of these since the left is now being affected by the fact that the people who are useful idiots have nothing really to reference that they can say is “their” authority… which is why there are so many front publishers (a while back i put the link of the forbes article interview with oleg shenin (?) pointing out that russia has purchased 4000 publishers all over the world, 45 of the largest. so they control much of what we read)
in the belmont piece you will find out that the allies were as bad as hitler… its history from the point of moral relatavism… (of course to be convenient they probably wont point out the mayhem of rapes as the russians raped jewish, and even russian camp guests).
if you go to capitalism magazine now, you can find a piece by a person that belittles the sacrifices of our military as a waste, and tries to make the case that the world would have been much better if the US had pretty much behavied isolationist and never got involved.
such authors have to cherry pick examples, conflate the details, shift the timelines, and generally confuse their readers so that they give up and just accept that a smarter person is an authority… then they go out and act like parrots. (the school system helps in this regard as they no longer can form cogent interelated concepts in the abstract).
i even have read recent pieces that claim that the cold war never happened and is modern right propaganda to manipulate the left with untrue scare stories… gulags never existed… the kulaks never died of starvation… the kgb never assasinated foreingners and terrorised their own in brighton beach (which they still do under the surface). [and dont say no. i have been to mroe than one barbecue where who i ended up eating with was clearly known because when they took off their shirts the tatoos told you all you needed to know).
you can find examples of such revisionism, minimization, apologetics, etc all over the left today.
its one of the reasons you cant hold a conversation. they believe that your facts are propaganda, so your crazy if you tell the truth. they will always end the argumetn short before yuo can get to the proof. and for some reason the admitted plots (like aids) is still touted (wright being a recent spigot).
so good luck… but i would first learn history withuot the revision… you dont have to agree with conclusions, but at least get the facts…
🙂
Artfldgr,
Thanks for your response and the time you put into it, but I must say you mistake me, most likely because I expressed my intention so poorly. Let me try again, if you will.
In particular, do you hear Mrs. Pelosi citing older thinkers/writers as the source of her political philosophy? Barack Obama? Mrs or Mr Clinton? Occasionally one may hear Tom Paine called out, but Jean-Jaques Rousseau? Steny Hoyer may talk at length about the constitution, but can you imagine him speaking openly on the floor of the house about Theodore W. Adorno? Barack Obama mentions Gramsci somewhere in his autobiography, but has anyone asked him a single question about Gramsci on the campaign trail? And if someone did, do you think he would answer with pride and volubility on his knowledge of same? I have slogged my way through Das Kapital and while I think myself none the better for it, I’d be willing to have a serious conversation about it. But then I’m not a politician or partyman. Can you imagine Mrs. Clinton doing the same? We know (or at least, believe) that most of our more senior (and junior for that matter) politicians have read (and in some cases studied in earnest) many or all of the works and authors you cite above, but do they ever speak proudly and openly about what they have learned and taken away from them? Not so much, I think. And so I wondered if examples I have overlooked might be brought to light. Now republican pols may be no better in this regard, but I don’t think they would be worried about potential public censure should they bring up John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, to say nothing of openly talking about William Buckley, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and their ideas. So, that’s the gist.
SDF
excellent response… sorry i didnt find it earlier. hope you get this.
but do they ever speak proudly and openly about what they have learned and taken away from them? Not so much, I think. And so I wondered if examples I have overlooked might be brought to light.
they do… however they do so by holding the key unchanged (conserved) position of the party and crow the goals. they dont talk about theory or education, they do talk about key goals. those who have also read, and know the word codes from history, know what they are alluding to. (who knows if they mean it despite what they do, after all its a system about gaining power, not necessarily actually ending up at socialism. the failure of the ussr shows that one can use the process to take control, then abandon the false ideology that got you there, and do something else. so there is no conclusion as to the end)
another thing they do is point to lineages, rather than roots… so they will tag wright, who will say he walked with luthor (i dont know if he did), who everyone knows was with malcom, etc.
its a religion of sorts, and many religions when not acceptable to followers found ways so that large numbers could know each other and talk in the open, and yet not be restricted in communication.
we think peace is the absense of war..
they define peace as the absence of opposition to socialism/communism.
they dont have to talk directly to those who know these definitions from reading the stuff, since they know what they double meanings are. so sentences can be crafted to sound appealing to two opposing groups with one reading all manner of secret messages from their leader!!! (which reinforces the concept that the leader is really working for them against the rest of their opposition in the crowd, etc).
as far as examples… you just have to look for codes (usually words that have lost their real meaning).. progressive, liberal, socialism, socialized..
changing personel (individuals) to human resources (means of production).
thanks for a great post…
There is a new book entitled THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS comparing 19th century libertarian Democrats to the 20th century Rousseau-Marx Democrats today (Amazon.com) as seen also on http://www.claysamerica.com.
The Coming Civil War
America is much divided on whether individual or community interests are most important. One side says people’s interests are harmonious with their neighbors in community. It’s a simple premise and the base of the American political system, as expressed by the 19th century Democrats (see THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon books and http://www.claysamerica.com). Men labor, exchange, learn, band together, act, and react upon one another, and in this way, there can result from their free and intelligent activity, order, harmony, progress, prosperity and all things that are good and better. Just observing the free market and the prosperity of America proves this premise.
Communities are made up of men and women, and each in America is a free agent. As free agents, they can choose. Since they can choose, they can be mistaken. Since they can be mistaken, they can suffer. Many make mistakes and suffer; as they start from ignorance, and in their ignorance they see before them an infinite number of unknown roads, all of which, except one, lead to mistakes. Mistakes breed suffering. Suffering falls upon the person who was mistaken and requires personal responsibility. Their actions, coupled with the intelligence that has been given them to see the connection between cause and effect, will bring them back, by their suffering, to a path of truth.
Many, on the other side, believe men’s interests, left to their own devices, will never combine harmoniously. They believe those interests, allowed to develop freely, lead mankind to injustice, inequality and poverty, simply because of the ugly and sinful nature of men. Therefore, they must oppose that simple premise. They must destroy American society as it is now because it grew from the sinful nature of man. They want to try another way. They believe the interests of community are more important than are the interests of the individual, the long established world governing principle of the few elite ruling the many. We just elected a President and political party that claim this position.
Individual freedom advocates do not deny mistakes exist; but recognize their purpose in community. If wrong-thinking is to fulfill its purpose, community must not encroach artificially upon individual responsibility. This is the tendency of most of our governing institutions, like parents and those offering remedies for the mistakes that afflict us. Under the philanthropic pretext of giving us a helping hand, the individual’s sense of responsibility fades. The freedom of the individual to make mistakes is not respected.
Trying to force all Americans into a system of slavery, where government is the master, may cause a new civil war to erupt. Our tradition, based upon the first premise, has proven better than any system ever devised on this planet. If we look at the rest of the world, where eighty percent are starving and struggling to stay alive, America looks bright and wholesome. Many Americans may prefer to fight than capitulate to Obama and the modern Democrats serving the collective interests.