In the last article in this series I reviewed 5 reasons I could be a Democrat. By now you are tracking that I am simply outlining the most appealing aspects of each major political party and contrasting that list against the most unappealing pieces of that party. For those of us who choose to be values based voters, there is simply very little to choose from. That is why recent elections have devolved into a selection between the lesser of two evils. This in itself contradicts both our interests and our values as voters.
The chief reason I could not vote Democrat is due to the party’s line on social issues. Foremost among these is the issue of abortion.I understand the argument of a woman’s right to choose. I have to believe that at the end of the day, the basic difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice view is an understanding of when life begins. I believe it begins with the heartbeat. A pro-choice voter believes something very different. I presume this is the difference between our views because I cannot, even on my most charitable of days, imagine any other way to justify a policy and philosophy that allows for the killing of unborn children.
Even if at some point in the future we are able to clearly and objectively define the beginning of human life more in line with the perspectives of the pro-choice position I would rather err on the side of a caution that seeks to protect human life until that revelation becomes evident. Frankly, I find it amazing that the pro-choice lobby and constituency is as large as it is. The core issue is one of philosophy, not science. Are they really so arrogant to risk the guilt of murdering infants to prove the confidence in their own philosophy of when life begins? No thank you!
And abortion is only at the top of this list of social issues. There is a whole line of significant social issues which are beyond the pale of compromise for me as a values based voter but the liberal Democratic party routinely counters.
There was a time when the family was seen as the support system people would lean upon. Big families created a safety net for people of all ages. Then there was the church and other religious institutions. After the industrial revolution and the rapid build up of populations in the cities these became outdated. Into the gap, and with the best of intentions, stepped the role of government. The progressives of the early 20th century were replaced by the projects of the New Deal during the Great Depression and then once again by the policies and ideals of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s. By the 1970s government was invested in every corner of American life – and failing miserably.
Liberal democrats hold at the core of their philosophy that more and bigger government is the answer to society’s ills. Unfortunately, they disregard the utter inefficiency and incompetence of big government programs. When a private sector employee performs their work inadequately he is fired. When a government employee does his work inadequately, four more people are hired to help them along.
I believe we need safety nets in society to aid and assist those who need it. The school lunch programs come to mind here. For some very poor families this is the the best and/or only meal their kids will receive every day. Big government does not build safety nets though. It builds a great society that is unsustainable.
Big Clumsy Hands
This goes back to the big government issue but there are few better examples of inefficiency than that demonstrated by so many government agencies. In one of the 2012 Presidential election debates Mitt Romney made the statement that Medicare was inefficient and President Obama countered “No it’s not.” Romney did not respond. How could you miss that one? Government programs are notoriously inefficient! I would argue that government programs are where efficiency goes to die.
- The US Postal Service, a service that every one in America uses and needs, has reported eight consecutive years of losses in spite of continuously raising the price of postage.
- The social security trust fund is expected to run out in 2037. That means people in their mid 30s currently paying into the fund (paying in A LOT!) will not collect out of the fund. And we have known this was going to happen for years and years but nothing is being done about it.
- In 2013 the US State Department spent $630,000 to gain more Facebook likes.
Beyond the data there is also the eye test. Go stand in line at the DMV and as you are doing this, remember, the same forces behind the counter are also now running your access to healthcare.
At our local high-school the government subsidizes the school lunch program so that lower income kids do not go without lunch. As mentioned above, this is a good thing. But in addition to this the school has taco and pizza bars, separate from the cafeteria lunches. These specialty shops are not included in the subsidized lunch programs. So the poor kids eat the regular cafeteria food and everyone else eats at the specialty tables. These government sponsored efforts have effectively fostered a visible division of classes in the high school cafeteria. The difference in quality of food is not only obvious but so is the economic standing of all those who are eating.
These bloated and inefficient programs are made up of Republicans and Democrats alike but it is the Democratic platform that constantly leans upon more government as the answer to society’s problems.
The word smug is increasingly used to describe the liberal perspectives and postures. The word literally translates to mean “confidence in one’s ability, superiority, or correctness.” The prevalent positions of “smug” among liberal democrats are prompted by their freedom to frequently disconnect from reality.
In 2008 presidential candidate and Illinois Senator Obama came under fire when he talked about bitter people in rural America who cling to guns and religion. His negative attitude toward rural Americans overlooked the fact that violence in his own hometown of Chicago had escalated to such an extent that local residents referred to the city as “Chiraq,” a comparison to the war zone in Iraq. His policies and ideologies were not solving the issues of his own backyard but that reality did not discourage his smug rhetoric toward more traditional parts of the country who saw the world differently than he did.
Many of my readers who live in caves may have missed the fact that Jon Stewart retired from the Daily Show last month. Stewart is (was) a late night comedian who gained a large amount of credibility in recent years for holding honest perspectives in the face of a biased media. On many occasions I found him to be hilarious. He was just a comedian though. Stewart and others like him (Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert) are at best editorialists operating the tools of their trade on extremely uneven terrain. It is easy to scoff at the establishment, the politics, and the issues of the day when backed by a team of writers, multiple rehearsals, and the ultimate end being a punch line rather than an effective solution to issues.
My apologies if it seems I am picking on Stewart and the cadre of liberal comedians who fill late night schedules. The point is, their comedic bits are increasingly leveraged by the democratic and liberal establishment as a mouthpiece for their perspectives. Change.org, a liberal organization founded by former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is sponsoring a petition to have Jon Stewart host a 2016 Presidential debate. A recent report from Politico revealed how Jon Stewart actually met with the President Obama at the White House over the course of his second term to help push the President’s policies. Democratic political leaders regularly visit Maher, Stewart, and Colbert to promote their agendas.
Like Rush Limbaugh did for the conservatives in the 90s, these comedians today all correctly contend that they are only entertainers. And that is correct. But they are increasingly utilized as legitimate voices and opinions in the American political system. The Democratic party pursues this and consequently aids in the dumbing down of the American voter.
The party of the little man sure spends a lot of time courting lobbyists and financial scandal. Republicans do the same, but they are known as the friends of big business from the outset. Former Senator Chris Dodd who was responsible for a lot of the legislation that has helped institutionalize fractures in our economic system since 2000 was known to gather lobbyists around a table and talk openly about what they wanted him to do and what they were willing to give him if he did their bidding. Dodd was not the first and by no means will he be the last. Whereas the Republicans traditionally take their payouts from big corporations the Democrats take it from big unions. They say one thing and do another. No big surprise there.
Also not strictly Democratic domain, but the rate of financial corruption among Democrats, especially leading Democrats is astounding. It is difficult to keep track of the corruption scandals leading democrats like the Clintons have been involved in through the years. The popular narrative suggests, in Hillary Clinton’s words, that they are victims of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” But if it always stinks in your house, something is rotten.
This is not just a tale of the Clinton’s though. The Democratic party is notorious for corruption and scandals. President Obama’s old Senator seat in Illinois was for sale by the Democratic governor to the highest bidder from the Democratic potentials. The President pushed through government funds for an alternative energy company that he lauded on the campaign trail. The same company, after receiving $535 million in government funding, went bankrupt.
The policies of big government simply do not work. We need regulation and oversight in this day of interconnected global economies and trade but the Democrat party’s answers in the form of big government is a historical record of miserable failure. They cripple individual initiative and personal responsibility and bureaucratize everything they touch to insure inefficiency. The lower income classes of America are not protected by a safety nets but trapped by a system that has neutralized economic mobility and this has been accomplished by largely Democratic strategies.
Many may have missed a set of stories in the New York Times in the last few weeks regarding the topless women at Times Square in New York City. Tourists at Times Square will find themselves bombarded by people in various costumes they can have their picture taken with for a fee. Added to these attractions are now topless women. New York’s mayor came under fire when he said the topless women need to back off a bit. Why did he come under fire? Judging by a number of articles from the feminist perspective on the issue, it should not be an issue for a woman to walk around topless if it is not an issue for a man to do the same.
The phrase “cut off your nose to spite your face” is an idiom that speaks to the act of holding to a self defeating principle. In the name of equality many liberal democrats hold to ideologies that justify the objectification and sexualization of women. (See my article American Woman)
This is only the tip of the iceberg though. From gay marriage to transgender teens in the high school locker room, to maternity leave for single men, Democratic ideology is cut off from reality and is all too happy to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Experimenting with the things that Matter
And the final reason I cannot vote or support a Democratic ticket is its willingness to experiment with the things that matter most. There was a time when this meant the military. In the 90s when issues like gays in the military or women in combat would come up, professional military leaders would argue that the military was no place for social experiments. Those were the good old days. Today it is the liberal democrats who have taken the liberty to change the definition of family, male and female, individual human identity, and greased the slopes of society’s skid into nonsense and its consequences.