Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is it the Democrat Or Democratic Party?

When the Democrat party is referred to in the media or by other commentators, it is often referred to as the Democratic party. In a bi-partisan way, both parties are democratic but one by name is the Democrat party. Is one way of saying it correct and one way incorrect?

Even if one is not a stickler for words, this presents an interesting question. Going to, and looking up the definition for democrat, it is:

* Democrat: a member of the Democratic party.

By the same token, the definition for democratic is:

* Democratic: a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.

This is a not so subtle difference. A democrat is a member of the Democrat party, and democratic is exhibiting the characteristics of the Democratic party. More than that, democratic is “pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.”

What is the unintentional point that is being made when the reference is made this way? It seems that on some level the Democrat Party is being raised to a level of “democratic” superiority, while the Republican Party is somehow less so.

To be clear, I am sure that in the majority of cases the choice of words or phrases are done in a completely innocent way, in that the term democratic rolls off of the tongue much more smoothly than democrat. Additionally, when one hears respected or long time political analysts using the term, it must correct. Right?

The point, although it may be trivial, is that terms and labels should be used correctly.

Democrat Jokes

There are a lot of funny things that democrats do. Typically, the Republicans and other conservatives love to poke fun at (1) how much money the democrats spend, (2) the increase, in size, of the government, and (3) taking away freedom of choice. Besides these three main points, conservatives love to make Democrat jokes for the simple reason that it is a good way to “blow off some steam”.

How Much Money The Democrats Spend

One favorite joke about Democrats is how much money they spend. If there is a social program, Democrats look to support it. A billion for this and a trillion for that have created a huge deficit for the United States. The irony is that it’s not all the Democrats fault. The Republicans have spent Zillions on Defense and corporate welfare and a drug prescription program. The point is that the conservatives love to point out that government has no business in social welfare. Instead, many conservatives believe that people can voluntarily be charitable and fill the needs that government fills for a lot less money and with the important ingredient of voluntary consent.

Here is an example of one of these jokes. What did the Democrat say to the Republican about the government spending too much money for welfare? “If only you had a heart, you wouldn’t allow others to suffer and die needlessly”. The conservative responded “If only YOU had a heart, you wouldn’t be trying to take out a piece of mine without consent”.

The Continual Increase, in Size, of the Government

Government is so big and nosey, nowadays, that people call it their big brother. They are “looking out for you and taking care of you”. Many democrats wish that the government would take care of the needs of all the people. Democrats are not so concerned with how large the government is, but are more concerned with how people are treated and taken care of. They are, in effect, voting for the regular working person.

Conservatives, on the other hand, like to help people. Many conservatives donate liberally to their churches and charities. However, conservatives think that social programs are not the responsibility of the government. For example, conservatives believe that your family, church, and friends should take care of you. If that doesn’t work, you can always depend on the kindness of strangers.

Here is an example of a joke about the size of government. A Republican and Democrat were talking one day about how big the government was. The Democrat said, ” The government is getting pretty large, but I like it that way. That way, I know that I will always have someone looking out for me and taking care of me”. The Republican replied, ” I would agree with you that it is nice to have someone looking out for you. However, I think a real person is a better someone than any government program.”

Taking Away Freedom of Choice

Conservatives think that what you earn should be yours to keep. Taxes should be low and the government should be light. This gives people an incentive to work hard and be productive. They can actually get ahead a lot easier because they retain more wealth. More importantly, conservatives believe it is wrong to take money from one person and give it to someone else. In fact, a lot of conservatives consider this redistribution of wealth as legal theft.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe big corporations are evil. They exploit workers and do not pay them fairly or treat them right. That is why big corporations must be taxes. Democrats also believe that nobody is going to step up and help people out. That is why the government must step in and do it. They believe the kind thing to do is tax those that have more and give to those that have less. They often think that those that don’t want to share their wealth are simply “evil” or misinformed people. That is why they do not have a problem with wealth redistribution.

These two opposing ideas have intertwined a freedom aspect. People are taxed for government programs and regulations are imposed that take away freedoms. Some people think of rules as a way to help society become better and yet others think the lightest government of all will be best regardless of the consequences.

Here is an example, of regulatory joke, about the oil spill. Obama’s famous last words: Regarding the oil leaking a mile deep in the gulf, “We’ll get to the bottom of this.” Speaking of BP paying for the clean up, “We’ll spare no expense.” Seeing the murky mess in the water, “I want to make this clear.” Speaking to the BP execs, “Make no mistake.” Then trying to be the man in charge, “We’re going to kick ass, when we find out whose ass to kick!”

2003-2006 Republican Congress Vs 2007-2010 Democrat Congress

The economic malaise from which we now suffer was caused by Democrats.

Democrats gave us the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the fierce resistance, to reining in its abuses, leading to the housing collapse, bringing about the collapse of the economy.

All bills for raising revenue (thus spending) must originate in the House of Representatives. Democrats have controlled the House and Senate, since January 2007. Republicans controlled both from 2003 through 2006.

The Bush Tax Cuts Had No Bearing Whatsoever on Today’s Recession

-It is Impossible For A Tax Cut To Hurt The U.S. In Any Way, Unless:

-A Nation is UNDER TAXED to meet essential services

-Does any economically literate person believe Americans are under taxed?

2003-2006 Republican Congress Vs. 2007-2010 Democrat Congress

________Unemployment Rate________

Democrat Congress Present Data July 2010——–9.5%

Republican Congress December 2006 Final Month—4.5%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

________Total Number of Unemployed________

Democrat Congress Present Data July 2010——-14.6 Million

Republican Congress December 2006 Final Month—7.0 Million

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total Deficits Democrats 2007-2010–Republicans 2003-2006

Democrat Congress 4 Yearly Deficits————$3 Trillion, 374 Billion

Republican Congress 4 Yearly Deficits———–$1 Trillion, 356 Billion

Source: Budget of the United States, Office of the President

Increase or Decrease In Revenues To Government

Republican Congress 2003-2006 (+) Plus $830.3 Billion

Democrat Congress 2007 To Present (-) Minus $281.2 Billion

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis-Dept. of Commerce

Increase in Disposable Income -Inflation Adjusted

Republican Congress December 2003-2006——-$1820

Democrat Congress 2007-2010——————$ 427

________Black Unemployment________

Democrats—–July 2010——-15.6%

Republicans—-Dec. 2006——–8.4%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

________Hispanic Unemployment________

Democrats———-July 2010–12.1%

Republicans——–Dec. 2006–4.9%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

________Teen Unemployment________

Democrats———-July 2010—26.1%

Republicans——–Dec. 2006—15.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

-Revenues are Never The Problem in America, Excessive Spending Always is

-America does not need 1 More Penny For Essential Services

-It does need to cut the cost of the federal government as a % of GDP (the national income) from 25% to 16%, over 8 years.

Limiting spending to 16% would pull all that capital back into the private sector, where all net wealth creation and job creation takes place. Per capita income would soar for doing exactly what each worker is doing right now. This exact principle is what gave us soaring growth in the 1990’s.

Entitlements/Welfare must be reined in. “All” able bodied men and women must perform a service meaningful to taxpayers as a first requirement to be eligible for welfare. Families must take in and support all welfare recipients in most cases.

________The Bush Tax Cuts________

-Not a single person was hurt or treated unfairly by the Bush Tax Cuts

-The highest percentage cuts went to the lowest bracket taxpayers-33%, the smallest cuts to the highest bracket-12%.

-All “net taxpayers” were helped from the Bush tax cuts, until Democrats took control of congress, in January, 2007

-Every vital area of the economy made strong gains through 2006, the strongest by the lowest income Americans–(CBO Study 1995-2005 )

_Disposable income was $1800+ higher, for every man woman and child by December 2006

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” – President John F Kennedy Dec. 14th 1962

JFK has many quotes, citing free market principles. Every JFK quote is 100% consistent with the Bush tax cuts and are as free market/limited government oriented (or more so) than that of every one of today’s Democrats; even more than many Republicans in congress today.

JFK’S quotes are also entirely consistent with the conclusions (along with the actual data) stated in this article.

-Almost immediately after Democrats took control of congress, the economy started slowing, then very quickly tanked.

-Democrat forced legislation, starting with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, then expanded by Bill Clinton, then by threats and shameless intimidation by the Reno Justice Department, using ginned up data, led to the following:

-Democrat spending measures and strong armed support by Democrats to ACORN-led at the time by community activist Barack Obama

-Sub-prime mortgages forced on America by Democrats, ACORN and the Reno Justice department.

-Misuse and corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by top Clinton Cronies, Raines, Gorelick, Johnson, etc.

No one boasted more about the great contribution to America of sub-primes, leading to Fannie and Freddie abuses, than Barney Frank and no one did more to block steps to avoid the collapse of the economy caused as a result of Fannie and Freddie’s monstrous corruption, than Frank.

Now he’s done a 180. Barney Frank has told Larry Kudlow, Fannie and Freddie should be abolished.

________Contrast Barney Frank-Then With Now________

See Barney Frank as early as 2004, praising the success of the sub-prime mess, as fellow Democrats ignore warnings by a federal regulator, even attacking the regulator as he warned the House Banking Commitee (Frank was the Ranking Democrat) as to what appeared to be a coming disaster, which is exactly what we got.

If you go to YouTube and search for Barney Frank, it is easy to find his videos including the one mentioned above. Frank is shown resisting attempts to rein in the whole sub-prime mess, while declaring its huge success, and subtly suggesting the callousness of Republicans. Frank’s Democrat underlings, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Lacy Clay, Arthur Davis cast all kinds of aspersions at the federal regulator.

Obama and the Democrats Push to Influence Our Children

Let’s face it, we as parents always put our children’s needs first. Doesn’t it go to say by electing The President of the United States, we need to think more about our children’s future than ourselves? After all we are all promised big changes by democrats that never occur. Pelosi and the democrats have controlled congress for almost 2 years and although they made many promises for change, nothing has occurred.

We are all well aware of the importance our teachers bring who teach and program our children. Parents and teachers have a profound effect on how are children will think and behave. Furthermore, we also know how important it is for our children to be surrounded with other well behaved positive thinking children from well rounded families.

It is no secret that Democratic President nominee Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of extremely angry, militant, known fanatic people including: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We want to brush aside these conclusions as attacks and believe Mr. Obama, but, how can we? Are you really to believe that we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry? This type of teaching plays a rule in anyone whom has endured it. Who is anyone kidding that Mr. Obama won’t run this country in the mindset of his teachers.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign featuring change and containing subliminal messages that promote a God-like figure in Obama who falls short in every way. The only change is a dangerous one. It only makes sense that if Obama wins the presidential election, then power will shift and the master teachers of our children will include twisted messengers; Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger. They will gain the power to change America forever and their quest to demoralize this country, create a socialist America, and limit your freedom immensely.

Socialism does not work and we have many examples to look at. Socialism is a more gentle way of conducting communism however; do not get it wrong, they go hand in hand. This is the reason Democrats are targeting young people, our children. Being a product of this teaching, they know how easy it is to program the minds of children. Making our leader appear young, hip, and cool to attract the young vote is all the wrong reasons. Sadly enough, the democrat party as we once knew is obsolete. This disease, “liberalism” has eaten away at most of the democrat party. Why else do they choose to nominate the most liberal, untraditional, extreme Marxism candidates?

Think about it and research past candidates to understand this all began even before Jimmy Carter. If it wasn’t for republicans fighting back and filling the void for democrats, this liberalism would have spread much faster. Many current leaders now, who marched and protested our soldiers in the Vietnam era are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war, attack our president, rid the country of God, and throw our freedom and capitalism down the drain. What better source than to find their way into our schools to poison our children’s minds and gain popularity in their votes to control our government. A known dear friend of barrack Obama’s, William Ayers is a prime example of this. Our military and strong leaders remain focused and have fought off the attacks of “liberalism”. They protect our freedom and democracy under the help of God as we had been founded in America. Whether you believe in Jesus, as the son of God or not, there is certainly enough documentation to prove he was a wise and sincere teacher with many following. This is a teacher I want my children to learn from. There is no comparison to these fanatics Obama has in his closet.

President Bush uses faith to aid him in his decision-making and luckily he is so forthright to abscond from negative pressuring and he stayed focus to win in Iraq. This positive direction in Iraq is a huge victory in America as well because the democrat party wanted us to lose so very bad. To hear Obama change his mind and go from ending this war immediately, to now, ending it responsibly and finishing the war with a victory is something that was hard for him to say. If George Bush wasn’t so relentless and steadfast in his beliefs and would have caved into the democrats wishes, we would have mass hysteria and the democrats would have much ammunition to help win the election.

If you haven’t figured it out, the democrats will do anything to win. The leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, also brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from reuniting in Iraq or elsewhere for that matter, because, they are on the run. We should admire and learn from our soldiers who demonstrate patriotism at a time when most of us have almost forgotten who we are, what we stand for, and what is at stake.

If Barrack Obama and the democrat party had their way, they would have kept denouncing this war even if it meant endangering our soldiers just to gain power and win the 08′ presidential election. Obama would have pulled our troops from Iraq severely discrediting and injuring our military reputation throughout the world. Not to mention this would have initiated an unprecedented bloodbath to the Iraqi’s and created a breeding ground for terrorists with one common goal; Kill Americans, Israeli’s, and Western supporters.

Obama has openly stated how he would conduct our military in a time of war: quit and return home. He apparently lacks understanding about the true nature of our enemies which is extremely dangerous. How can we accept any notion that Obama is capable of keeping us safe from the terrorists around the world and protect our country as well as our allies.

Russia is just waiting for America to weaken so they can reek havoc on democratic nations such as; Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, etc. I have often believed Russia was befriending the Middle East, especially Iran, to gain power like the old Soviet Union. Iran is quickly making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb which would not be possible without Russia’s help. Russia was waiting for America to fail in Iraq so they could swoop in and gain power with the most evil of governments.

Doesn’t that scare you that most evil governments wanted to see us fail in Iraq and our own democratic party shared this desire? Look at the facts instead of letting the media sensationalize Obama and make your own decision. Look where Obama comes from, (teachings) how he has voted, and always says whatever it is to sound great even if it is completely opposite from what he originally has said.

This is a perilous time and only getting worse with the rise of the “old Soviet Union” and a possible nuclear Iran. Right now more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. America rose out of nowhere and many have given their life to make us great.

Listen to the dead, stay strong and united to keep a free and democratic United States and continue pursuing freedom for the world. Obama and the democrats are waiting time bombs.

Democrats – Republicans

The United States has two primary political parties. Each party suffers from its unique problems. The Democrats haven’t had a definable political agenda since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran in his first presidential election in 1932. Lyndon B. Johnson borrowed from Roosevelt’s platform for his first direct election for president in 1964. Johnson expanded upon Roosevelt’s New Deal program. What has happened as a result of this non platform? The Democratic Party once controlled the solid South, now the South is solidly Republican. This is strange, for in that solid South, each state has a very large percentage of Afro-Americans. No matter what the Democratic Party is, to an understanding Afro-American, the Republican Party is anathema. The Democratic Party needs to get whatever story it has to tell out and more important, get the Afro-Americans to turn out to vote.

Another strange thing about the Democrats is that they can’t win governorships in key states considered solidly Democratic. Look at Massachusetts. Massachusetts was the sole state to vote for the Democrat candidate, George McGovern in his 1972 presidential race. Every other state went Republican. Recently, although Massachusetts votes mainly Democratic; it has elected four Republican governors since January 1991. The State of New York is even more Democratic. It has a longer history of only Democratic governors, but the current governor, George E. Pataki, has been a Republican governor since November 1994. To add insult to misery, New York City, a stronghold of Democrats, currently has a Republican mayor. How does the Democratic Party explain these losses plus others? Losing the governor’s office makes holding the state harder in other elections. Failing to have a positive acceptable national program makes it even harder. What will any middle-of-the road, non affiliated voter vote for? A person just can’t vote for a candidate if that candidate is only against something.

The Republicans have a hidden weapon. When either house of Congress is viewed on television, look very carefully. Look for the wires that run from the party’s whip or leader to each Republican member. Each Republican member’s hand goes up when the leader pulls the wire on very key issues. They all vote without any thought, but only at their party’s call. They all are prompted to speak on the same points outside the chambers. They all vote mindlessly on vital subjects of major importance to their Republican president. Think about the vacancies on our Supreme Court! After the president announces a nominee each Republican, even without any knowledge, all praises the nominee, probably without even knowing the candidate’s name. (Maybe, with the Harriet E. Miers nomination we may see a difference.)

Another Republican problem is that the party needs a great deal of money to maintain its dominant position. A chunk of that money comes from corporations. That means that these corporations and other wealthy contributors need some kind of reward. That comes with appointments to important government positions, in many cases by incompetent people. The Republican Party’s mantra is to have its members stick together on important issues. Therefore, appointees like John Bolton and Alberto Gonzales get confirmed. The open hostility John Bolton is receiving in the United Nations has shown that his recess appointment was wrong. Bolton did have large support in the Senate when his name was offered; otherwise his recess appointment would never have been made. Alberto Gonzales wrote the approved memo on torture. That almost makes him a criminal. In spite of these known facts, he was overwhelmingly approved as Attorney General by a Republican Senate.

These are just a few of the big problems each party faces in the upcoming elections. The congressional elections come up next year. The parties face the presidential election two years from that election – the Republicans without an incumbent.

Top 5 Historical Facts of the US Democratic Party

Despite the important role of the Democratic Party in US political history, only few Americans can state the basic facts about its history. The democrats were dominating US politics in two distinct periods: between 1828 and 1860 and between 1932 and 2000. The establishment of the Democratic Party happened in 1829 when Andrew Jackson became the President of the Unites States. If many Americans did not like the ideas of Jackson in the 1820s ad 30s, the Democratic Party would never have been formed. Together with his followers, Jackson founded the Democratic Party. In those days, the democrats were definitely in favor of slavery and had widespread support in the southern states where slavery was still a normal aspect of daily life.

After the Civil War, the democrats became the party of big business and this was the main reason why it alienated the less prosperous voters in the north. Moreover, the democrats were able to perfect the urban political machine long before the Civil War by getting loyal votes from immigrants and others who were given jobs and services. This clever combination of large urban support in the north and the unquestionable support in the south, paved the way for the democrats to sometimes win the presidency or control Congress. This became explicitly apparent in the presidential elections of 1884 which was won by the democrat Grover Cleveland. He got the solid support from the south, the Border States, and even Indiana, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.

In the era between the Civil War and the Depression, the democrats did not really stand for anything except the oppression of African Americans. The power of the democrats in those days was also facilitated by the prohibition of African Americans to vote in the south. This was obviously clear with the election of Woodrow Wilson who remained in office between 1913 and 1920. Wilson became president because he had the massive support from the south and gained significant advantage from the division among in the Republican Party. Despite the fact that he only received 41% of the popular vote, he got the presidency and thanks to the First World War he became a historic figure. After Wilson’s presidency, the democrats played a marginal role in US politics and this bad fate was turned around with a man-made disaster: the Great Depression.

When the democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the American electorate was already blaming the republicans for all the misery. The US was ready to make a shift towards a welfare state like those already existing in several European countries. The New Deal proposed by the democrats merely filled a social security gap which existed long before in the US. The time was ripe for the introduction of the New Deal program of the democrats which was necessary to bring the US closer to the advanced European countries in providing social safety nets for those unfortunate ‘victims’ of the ruthless side effects of the industrial economy.

Southern African Americans were aligned with the Republican Party until the 1960s. But the democrats under President Lyndon Johnson finally enacted and enforced a meaningful civil rights act. Johnson also led the democrats to extend the New Deal. The War on Poverty was truly a democratic program to alleviate poverty in the US. Unfortunately, the cost of this program had to be combined with the costs of the Vietnam War and this led to the rise of stagflation in the 1970s. It was another democrat elected to the presidency who finally dismantled Johnson’s Great Society programs: Clinton. What happened during the Clinton administration was the move of the democrats to the right side of the political spectrum using an Orwellian excuse for this shift called ‘welfare reform.’


“It Ain’t What You Eat It’s the Way How You Chew It” – Lessons For Democrats

After their 2008 electoral sweep, many Democrats ridiculed Republicans for continuing, even intensifying, in playing to their base. Gleeful Democratic pundits commented that Republicans were out of touch with the mainstream values of the electorate. The Republicans were forcing moderates out of their party. Moving further and further to the right seemed laughably misguided for a national strategy.

And yet…. We saw the popularity of an invincibly captivating president with consistently moderate politics evaporate from 76% job approval rating in February, 2009 to 49% by January, 2010 (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll). We saw President Obama’s signature effort to reform the U.S. healthcare system drop in public support from 59% to 42% over the last year (Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll), with support of a public plan to compete with private insurance plummeting from 76% to 36%* from October to December last year (ABC News/Washingtion Post Poll). Now, with the upset election of a Republican senator in Democratic Massachusetts, we hear many Democrats nervously back-peddling on health care reform. Even Barack Obama’s former senate seat in Democratic Illinois is widely viewed as a potential pick up for Republicans this year.

How is it that a Republican party that appeared to be eating itself into oblivion has so quickly re-emerged to threaten the ever-so-brief Democratic majority in national government?

This is not a new phenomenon. After all, we are the same country that followed up an election of Jimmy Carter by hiring Ronald Reagan to play the President. Furthermore, many moderate Democrats who voted for Reagan would vote for Jesse Jackson in the following Democratic primary. Now, Jackson and Reagan did not have much in common politically. But they did share one important attribute: both of them spoke with believably strong conviction. While polls have always showed that Americans disagree with Republicans on the issues, people will vote Republican if the candidate seems to genuinely stand for something**.

Meanwhile, Democrats cater their message to court moderates. What do we perceive these candidates to stand for? Moderation? While moderation may have its intellectual appeal, it doesn’t normally stir the passions of voters. I have attended many political rallies, and I have yet to hear people chant, “Moderation! Moderation!”

If history is any judge, the national Democratic Party, chastened by the sudden success of right wing Republicans, will take away the same losing message they always do. Instead of seeing that it was the Republicans’ move to their base that saved them, they will see it as the Republican’s move to the right. They will ill-advisedly try to compete with Republicans on Republican terms. This will fail, as it nearly always does. What right-minded Republican will vote for a fake Republican when they can vote for the real thing?

The message the Democrats would be well advised to take home is that the public like politicians who stand for something. It’s less important what you stand for in U.S. politics than how convincingly you deliver your message. Or, in the words of Sleepy LaBeef, “It ain’t what you eat, it’s the way how you chew it.”

*Many polls still have this number in territory above 50% – it seems to depend on how the question is worded.
**A little demonizing of the Democratic candidate and a few dirty election tricks also tend to help.

Democrats Need Iraq Surge to Fail

Given the steady flow of anti-war and anti-surge rhetoric spewing from the mouths of the Congressional majority and Presidential candidates seeking the Party’s nomination, I have to wonder if key Democratic players suffer from a genuine lack of understanding regarding the threats we face if we fail in Iraq, or if they are just choosing to ignore those threats and the likely consequences of precipitous withdrawal.

Critics of recent Congressional action on the Iraq war like to argue that Democrats are traditionally weak on national security, and that they simply don’t have a firm understanding of what will happen if we pull our troops out prematurely and surrender Iraq to the jihadists and the Iranians. This position is understandable.

It’s easy to surmise that those on the left misunderstand the threat when you read comments like the ones made by LA Times columnist and fervent Bush / Republican basher Rosa Brooks, who in a column called “9/11 was bad, but…” published on April 27, wrote: “The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation.” Ms. Brooks went on to write, “Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective.” Keep it in perspective? Her words and her comparison of the death toll from 9/11 with our casualty figures from the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam reveal a leftist mentality that is focused on the damage caused by one supposedly isolated act of violence and not on the threat posed by a radical ideology determined to effect our eventual subjugation under the banner of Islam.

While this belief of natural weakness and lack of comprehension may be true for the more radical members of the Party, who are blinded by their hatred for the President, wars in general, and the Iraq war in particular, I don’t believe it to be the case for the Democrats’ core leaders in the Congress or on the Presidential campaign trail. Instead, I believe it more likely that the heavy hitters of the Democratic Party do in fact recognize the threats we face and are purposely ignoring the consequences of defeat for political gain in 2008.

There is some basis for this theory. Earlier this year, the Democratic Leadership Council, chaired by former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, published its Plan B on Iraq, citing the failure of President Bush’s strategy as a call for changing direction in the conduct of the war. Part of the plan reads as follows:

“…the ‘out now’ option would likely compromise U.S. security interests, trigger a full-scale civil war, invite foreign intervention, provide an unprecedented propaganda victory for Sunni Jihadists and Shi’a theocrats whose savage violence has been aimed at creating this outcome, and abandon those millions of Iraqis whose suffering under Saddam Hussein will be compounded by more chaos, war and tyranny.”

The plan goes on to say: “A precipitous withdrawal would also drive the Iraqi government further into the arms of the Iranians…making Shi’a-Sunni reconciliation even harder and increasing Iran’s regional influence. And it could definitely create a dangerous recruitment point and training base for the international Jihadists who remain the key global threat to our, and the world’s security interests. A rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq isn’t really a Plan B: it’s a ‘Plan Zero’ for liquidating the whole Iraq engagement as hopeless.”

So where’s the disconnect? How can the Democratic Leadership Council recognize the dangers associated with premature withdrawal while the Party’s Congressional leaders and Presidential candidates vociferously demand that very course of action? How does the Council reconcile its position with Senator Reid’s public statements concerning a war that is already lost and the need for bringing our troops home in accordance with the mandate allegedly granted by the November 2006 elections?

The truth, I believe, is that most Democrats understand exactly what will happen if we fail in Iraq. They understand that the unchecked genocide of Iraqi Sunnis by the Shi’a majority could spark a regional sectarian war. They understand that Iran’s position in the region would be enhanced and that a traditional buffer against Shi’ite influence in the Middle East would be eliminated. They understand that the violence and chaos in Iraq would likely escalate, endangering our allies in the region and our national security interests worldwide while creating a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. And they understand that terrorists around the world would be emboldened by their victory over the world’s only remaining superpower, just as they were when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Given this understanding of the consequences of premature withdrawal, why are leading Democrats denouncing the President’s “surge” strategy and demanding a reduction in forces or a complete pullout instead? There can be only one answer.

Democrats know that they must maintain the status quo in Iraq until after the 2008 elections. To concede, even a little bit, that the surge might be working, that there may be signs of progress, would be to admit that the President might have been correct in implementing his new security strategy for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province. That is why it was necessary to discount General Petraeus’ reports of initial progress and encouraging signs even before he appeared in the House and Senate. It is also why Speaker Pelosi felt it was more important to work on securing votes for the withdrawal resolution than it was to be at Petraeus’ briefing.

The success of the surge would spell political disaster for Democrats as Americans realized that we could in fact win in Iraq, and that there was an honorable end in sight for a conflict that has torn at the very soul of this nation. For Democrats, the surge must fail in order for Iraq to be used as political ammunition in the 2008 elections.

Democrats also know that they cannot, under any circumstances, cut off funds for the troops, for they alone would bear full responsibility for abandoning our men and women in harm’s way and for the increased violence and chaos that would surely follow in Iraq after U.S. troops were redeployed.

So what we get from the Democratic-led Congress and from the Democratic Presidential field is resolution after resolution criticizing the President while avoiding responsibility for anything that happens in Iraq. The hope, I believe, is to maintain the current pattern through the 2008 elections, allowing Democrats to claim that the President was the problem and that they were powerless to stop him because Republicans in the Congress would not support overriding a Presidential veto.

The end result is the undermining of the Commander-in-Chief, the troops in the field, and their mission in Iraq purely for political gain. The strategy is an astute one, as far as Washington maneuvering goes, but it is also one of surrender and defeat in Iraq in order to secure victory at the ballot box in 2008. For Democrats, political advantage has taken priority over national security. That is why the surge must fail, and that is why Democrats have fittingly been accused of being “The Party of Defeat.”

What Do Democrats Believe in Anyway?

According to, the technical definition of Democrat is “a member of the Democratic party.” This is not exactly helpful, especially if you are new to politics and trying to figure out where you fit in the political spectrum. At the risk of sounding partisan and getting the political bloggers on my back, the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want bigger government while Republicans want smaller government. Obviously there are plenty of ways to incorporate both philosophies into a political belief system, so don’t think that this article is going to favor the Democrats over the Republicans. We only want to explore what makes Democrats…well, Democrats!

It might be hard to believe with all of the partisan bickering happening in Congress, but Democrats were, once upon a time, members of a party called the Democratic – Republican Party, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Democratic Party officially separated from the Republican Party when Andrew Jackson was elected.

That’s all fine and good, but what do Democrats really believe? We can’t speak for individuals within the Democratic Party, but the party defines itself as believing in the following:

Raising the minimum wage
Investing in and favoring renewable energy over oil
Lower taxes for the middle class
Higher taxes for the wealthy (currently defined as those who make more than $250,000 per year)
Public funding for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
National/Universal health care
Lower pharmaceutical costs
Protection of the environment
Lower costs for Higher Education
North American Free Trade Agreement
Central American Free Trade Agreement
Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax
Equal Opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion
Making gay marriage legal
Pro-Choice legislation
Stem cell research
Ending the war in Iraq
Reversing Unilateralism
Decolonization of Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican citizens want that)
This is simply a quick laundry list of what Democrats believe in as a party. All of these points have paragraphs of complicated policy behind their headlines (which we do not have time to explore in this article). Within both political parties there are members who do not agree with every facet of a party’s political platform.

The 2008 election has caused the balance in Washington to tip toward the Democrats’ side of the aisle. Americans have elected a Democratic President and both the House of Representatives and the Senate will have Democratic majorities when everyone has been sworn in to session. Many Republicans worry about how this will shift the balance for laws and policy in the United States. It is important to remember that you cannot paint all Democrats (or all Republicans) with the same brush. It is also important to remember that being “liberal” and being “a democrat” do not always mean the same thing. In the last few decades the “liberal” brush has been used against Democrats and it is important to remember that liberals can be found in the Republican, Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties as well!

Death of Suburbia and Resulting Democratic Party Dominance

United States is a huge country. That and favorable conditions led to an early and advanced car culture (Canada, Russia, China, Brazil had various restrictions stifling that, ranging from permafrost to outright ban on private property). The love for cars and the infrastructure that makes it possible has been a source of national pride for decades and brought envious glances from around the world. As much as smaller vehicles make sense in urban areas, anybody who has been to rural U.S. would immediately appreciate the benefits of increased horsepower and vehicles whose size would be considered military grade elsewhere in the Western world. When you take into account that most Americans lost their virginity inside cars, the psychological obsession with motor vehicles begins to make sense. It’s no wonder that road trips hold a special place in the national consciousness and that advertisements for cars overly utilize freedom and sex appeal compared to how cars are marketed elsewhere (for more on this, check out advertising guru Clotaire Rapaille’s Culture Code).

However, the unfortunate side effect of Eisenhower administration’s emulation of Germany’s Autobahn (rather than large scale development of high speed public transit as in France or Japan) also allowed the whites to not live together with non-whites. Non-whites (and the poor in general) were subsequently never fully integrated into the national fabric since those better off could now move away from the poor into suburbia. Unlike the Soviets (who attempted national integration with their colonial subjects through mass education) or the British/French (who were geographically separated from non-white subjects), white Americans found a way to solve their disinterest of getting along through mass movements into the suburbs for which there was plenty of space for.

It has been common knowledge for decades now among social policy experts that a mixing of different classes is good for society as a whole. For instance, over a third of Holland’s people live in affordable public housing since once you qualify to move in, they don’t kick you out if your income greatly increases. Many professionals of course remain to take advantage of the savings. Class polarization along geographic lines is thus greatly reduced. In United States, the subsidies to highways (and the resulting creation of suburbia) have done more than just rot inner cities, deteriorate food quality, and create fertile ground for South Africa-esque gated communities. They have set the ground for inevitable reversal of suburbias becoming slums due to the sheer economic and logistical inefficiencies of suburban construction in general.

Interestingly enough, the two party system was preserved as rural whites and the remaining urban whites (often cynically using racial politics to bolster electoral numbers and influence) were balanced numerically. However, in the last 20 years a number of the following factors began to create an imbalance:

1) More than half of people now living in urban areas than rural ones

2) More people deciding to remain single and not having children (diminishing appeal of creating a suburban nest

3) Increase in the amount of people renting rather than trying to buy a home (the “American dream” so far has been achieved by only 1/3 of the population with a third flat out rejecting it for urban living and a third either desperately trying or slowly converting to the urban dream. The recent housing bubble and collapse is by far the best evidence of this. It will hopefully create a proper national attitude readjustment concerning what dream to pursue and what mode of living to support and encourage with laws, regulations, and incentives. People who rent are increasingly seen as at least co-equal to home owners by politicians)

4) Increase in secularization of United States that leads to a view of small town residents as backward religionists

5) Globalization and de-industrialization of United States leading to reduction of opportunities for rural areas and increase in opportunities in Urban hubs

6) Rapid increase in college access (for at least majority of the whites) creating a stronger educated class that abhors small towns and where educated individuals try to move out.

Considering that the population of this country doubled over half a century, the suburbs had to expand or at least rise in price. The demand from educated whites could not be readily satisfied due to sheer physical and financial logistics.This of course resulted in white migrations into the Urban areas once again resulting in gradual change in urban political leadership (notice NYC under republican mayors), increase in infrastructure improvements for new migrants due to wealthier tax base, and corresponding millitarization of police. The drop in crime in major urban areas in last 15 years is not due to some role model efforts of a mean spirited former mayor and cracking down on squeegee men but by outright displacement of the poor from the urban areas.

Colonization of Brooklyn in areas such as Williamsburg is a fascinating example. Colonization as a term is not used lightly in this piece. First came the brave poor urban whites wanting to rent cheap space (much like the displacement of blacks from another further part of Brooklyn, Brighton Beach, by Soviet emmigrants for whom money was an issue). These individuals who would have otherwise preferred lower Manhattan:

1) could tolerate living next to minorities more than their more timid white counterparts from suburbia due to greater familiarity of the landscape

2) many were physiologically (ENFP, ESTP, ENTP psychological types most likely predominate the party scene at the edges of white settlements in Brooklyn) understimulated and were more free of the bonds of religion/tradition/ignorance

They used their newly acquired cheap habitats to throw wild parties and engage in large scale hedonism that would not be allowed in lower Manhattan. The contrast of educated hedonistic college graduates amidst populations of blacks with whom they had little in common slowly displacing previous residents through economics makes the term of colonization resonate. Of course once they settled the area, infrastructure improved from increase in tax revenue. This allowed other whites, older and more suburban to follow on their heels in increasing numbers. The L train connecting predominantly white lower Manhattan with Manhattan’s expansion across the river is of course shiny and new.

The trend has interesting political implications. The political center rather than being split like before will move to the cities. It is unlikely that rural racist/religious will flip to being democrat again as in the 50s. The increase in financial power of the cities and the influx of educated whites into the Democratic party creates a Democratic party that keeps growing stronger with time as the wealthiest 20-30% of population (who haven’t fled abroad in search of employment) occupy what was once “inner cities”. In effect, around some major cities the suburbia has moved into them. Long Island suburbia is thus creeping westward. Some cities perceived as unsalvagable like Detroit will be allowed to die and become decrepid shells like many Soviet cities now rotting in Siberia. Suburbia will not disappear of course and those too far away from cities will transform it into a more militarized gated community structure. Rise in gated communities in last 20 years illustrates this.

American cities will become more like France’s, with immigrants and minorities being on the outskirts rather than the whites. This dynamic of the most powerful individuals dominating the political sphere from the urban areas will not escape the attention of non-white Americans for long. The tension within the newly powerful Democratic party and the imbalance of one party always setting the national agenda can be resolved in 2 scenarios.

A) Although we’ve seen rather pathetic recent attempts by the Republican party to re-assess their relationship with minorities, it is not impossible that they will transform themselves into a multi-ethnic political party years in the future and structure themselves more along economic populism. This would allow them to dominate numerically as white population declines below 50% in the 2020s and so on. If they do not do so then they will continue losing national election after election.

B) The uneducated/rural/religious and more blatantly racist core of the Republican party might not tolerate being part of a multiethnic construct and thus would not take into consideration a platform that attracts and integrates the minorities being driven from the cities. This will result in Republican party turning increasingly millitant and radical and their continued failure at the national polls will shrink them into almost a third party status. At that point, non-whites disillusioned with situation in many urban areas (surely there will be some urban areas that integrate better with influx of education and resource redistribution) and the increasing radicalism of the Republicans can lead for a creation of a third party.

This is an open ended scenario that sees partial disintegration of Republican rural/suburban political power through loss of voters to Democrats, Libertarians, crypto-Fascist conservatives and conceivably some Hispanic-black coallition that tries hard to attract some poor rural whites with populism. Many Midwestern states will continue Republican dominance unchanged and would resort to rabid state’s rights calls to insulate themselves from the influence of the Democratic center. However, without significant numbers in Congress, the efforts of Republican state governments will not go as far as hoped. No longer would they be able to rally rural whites against the cities as the cities will become increasingly white and wealthy. It is possible that libertarian ideology would prevail by default in large swaths of rural areas due to its non-redistributive nature, dog eat dog survivalist ethic, and thus potential to reduce public conflict (even while further alienating ethnic groups from one another). Private money from cities would then have unhindered influence.

(Sidenote: the above scenarios assume there is no national break up, constitutional reorganization, or civil violence. This article was originally written in May 2009 and things have deteriorated dramatically since then. As mentioned above, although rural Republicans are not likely to switch to Democratic party, it is possible that psychological association of executive branch with steep downward economic spiral will lead urban whites to GOP in 2010 elections. Although I continue to believe that democratic majority will be strengthened through election of more progressives, even if urban voters flock to GOP in the next congressional round, the Palin crypto-fascist faction should still split the GOP allowing continuation of Democratic national center.)

As of today, many Americans are distracted by the many troubles and pressures of international commitments and economic crisis to pay attention to United States taking many of the trappings of South American countries. Although the country is too big to have all of the elites concentrated in the cities, their increase in globalized urban hubs will, for the first time, create a concentration of corporate power behind one party. Urban areas are also easier to defend and logistics of food transport become streamlined. The Democratic party could very well resort to empty promises of equality, progress, social responsibility, and every man woman and child needing an education to preserve an image of a multi-ethnic construct. Reality on the ground however will make it easy for it to not fulfill any of the promises. The great educational gaps between the races, lack of national ethnic integration, the backwardness and biases of southern evangelicals will make it hard for people to hold Democrats accountable. After a while it could very well be that the Democratic party will stop pretending about whose interests it defends and having shed American international commitments abroad (and promises to spread freedom and equality), United States would transform into a Brazil-esque entity. Decadent hedonistic urban individualism with vast swaths of the rural population left behind (even more so than before if that can be imagined). White flight is a radical concept and a symptom of a rotting nation without national unity (last time we saw white flight was in post-colonial spaces such as Africa and Central Asia where Russians found it intolerable to live with one formerly dominated group but found it easier to remain within the Baltic space where they are hated perhaps even more).

Solutions to this are few and they have to be relatively radical:

1) Rapid shedding of our imperial ambitions and commitments abroad to save money to dump into infrastructure rather than acceleration of Soviet type decline and rot due to the executive being browbeat by military leadership

2) Utilizing the internet to augment education ( and thus bypass some of the gridlock for education reform) to provide Hispanic and black children a nationally standardized Pre-K to High School materials that can be taught at home
3)Voting restructuring to allow a more proportional representation in congress. Our government is too weak and divided to make major changes even under a committed intellectual like Obama. Hopefully, he isn’t our version of Tony Blair. His stand on Afghanistan tomorrow will reveal a lot about the nature of his character. Major surge in Afghanistan will demonstrate a fundamentally weak character and the specifics of the possible surge will show the current strength and ideological orientation [nationalist/internationalist] of military leadership

Internet as it stands now is not enough to create a common culture for Americans. However if nothing radical is done and south-American style impudent corporate power begins to finally rule with the backing of a relatively homogeneous cultural/political group of elites and their white educated supporters (undivided as they were last few decades) then social tension will continue to increase. Then we will have education provided more forcefully years from now by an American version of Hugo Chavez. The experience of Brazil has shown that a large multi-ethnic country becomes dictatorial once their oligarchs and the educated begin to cluster in urban cosmopolitan hubs. It may sound silly now with Obama’s troubles to think that Democratic party can become so monolithic but in the absence of a national split up into smaller federal unions, this scenario is not out of the question. Many countries in the Western hemisphere (notably Cuba and Brazil) provide valuable information as to what can occur.