LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
Jay Ambrose captured the essence of the "new" democratic party nicely in this following piece. It was first published on 4/16/06, but has been republished a number of times. I'm a big fan of individual rights, principles, racial equality and helping the poor as described below. But I've found myself not being able abide by the duplicity of democratic leaders and their positions over the last decade. Of particular concern to me is their stated concern for the poor, but their opposition to programs and ideas that will help the poor like social security overhaul, school choice, increased spending/taxes, and their "socialist/communist" leanings.
They've become a party absorbed in positioning and "nuance" rather than of ideals and solutions. This article captures my views and concerns better than any other article I've ever seen.
By JAY AMBROSE
Scripps Howard News Service
18-APR-06
There's a theory about the development of the human species that we did not leave the trees millions of years ago to go scrambling about on the ground, but that the trees left us. The climate changed and they withered and died and we were forced to adapt. That's pretty much how I feel about me and Democrats. I was raised a Democrat by staunchly Democratic parents and thought as a young man that here was a party that stood for principles _ particularly, individual freedom, racial equality and helping the poor _ that demanded my allegiance. I've tried never to leave those principles, but the Democrats did _ and left me, too.
I took note _ with the help of commentary by wise conservatives _ of how the Democrats gradually but certainly were encircling our liberties with their statist enthusiasms. For every problem, they had a government solution, often one that did not work.
I was appalled to see that, in the name of ending racial discrimination, they decided to discriminate, dressing their infamy in fancy clothes by calling it "affirmative action." Despite grand achievements through a contrary position, most of the party lined up on the side of using skin color as a means of favoring some against others, and the fact of earnest motives did not make the practice OK.
I observed how the Democrats, seeking the votes of people of modest means, instigated envy of the rich and produced legislation that hobbles businesses, dulls initiative, stifles the economy and lessens opportunity for everyone _ including the opportunities of the poor.
Every year, every new session of Congress, confirms for me that the Democrats are not the social benefactors I once thought they were. Advocates of vast, expensive social programs that accomplish nothing much, many of them wink at the dissolution of marriage among the underclass as if it doesn't matter, when, in fact, it does, when, in fact, marriage affords the most likely rescue from poverty.
New ideas? Forget it. These captives of special interests _ teacher unions among them _ pooh-pooh school vouchers, even if that means disadvantaged children will be disadvantaged adults whose intellectual development was never given a chance.
To many Democrats, the Constitution does not mean what it says except when there is a tactical advantage in discovering that it does. Individualism? They belittle it, as if that principle had not given us greatness. Collectivism? They argue for their own disguised version of it, calling it "social justice," as if history had taught us no lessons about its final futility.
My adaptation to the Democratic disgrace was not to become a Republican, to register as one and cheer for the party no matter what, but to look to the party to offset Democratic deficiencies, just as one might hope the Democrats would offset Republican deficiencies.
I thought maybe this party would fight to let me be my own moral agent, to give free-market vitality a better chance to improve the quality of life for everyone, to stop government when it threatened to diminish us citizens, making us into little, bitty entities that do not much matter in the big, federal scheme of things.
Once again, though, a party is leaving me, most dramatically through record federal spending that in ways gross and subtle contradicts the party's own best instincts, its promises, its past and its integrity. You do not stop the federal government's wild, clumsy dance by rewarding the performance with still more billions of dollars, and you do not serve the nation at large with endless favors for congressional districts.
There's more _ for instance, Republican support in Congress for President Bush's worst errors, such as his programs for Medicare drugs and farm subsidies, and lack of support for his best initiatives, such as reforming Social Security with private investment accounts.
In the end, I still trust Republicans more than Democrats, whose defeatism could wreck us in the war on terror and whose European-style, semi-socialist urging for welfare-state enlargements could make another France out of us, a once proud land due for lick-boot humiliation. But I do not trust them very much. It would be worse for the Republic if the Democrats win the House this November, but to what extent I am not sure.
They've become a party absorbed in positioning and "nuance" rather than of ideals and solutions. This article captures my views and concerns better than any other article I've ever seen.
By JAY AMBROSE
Scripps Howard News Service
18-APR-06
There's a theory about the development of the human species that we did not leave the trees millions of years ago to go scrambling about on the ground, but that the trees left us. The climate changed and they withered and died and we were forced to adapt. That's pretty much how I feel about me and Democrats. I was raised a Democrat by staunchly Democratic parents and thought as a young man that here was a party that stood for principles _ particularly, individual freedom, racial equality and helping the poor _ that demanded my allegiance. I've tried never to leave those principles, but the Democrats did _ and left me, too.
I took note _ with the help of commentary by wise conservatives _ of how the Democrats gradually but certainly were encircling our liberties with their statist enthusiasms. For every problem, they had a government solution, often one that did not work.
I was appalled to see that, in the name of ending racial discrimination, they decided to discriminate, dressing their infamy in fancy clothes by calling it "affirmative action." Despite grand achievements through a contrary position, most of the party lined up on the side of using skin color as a means of favoring some against others, and the fact of earnest motives did not make the practice OK.
I observed how the Democrats, seeking the votes of people of modest means, instigated envy of the rich and produced legislation that hobbles businesses, dulls initiative, stifles the economy and lessens opportunity for everyone _ including the opportunities of the poor.
Every year, every new session of Congress, confirms for me that the Democrats are not the social benefactors I once thought they were. Advocates of vast, expensive social programs that accomplish nothing much, many of them wink at the dissolution of marriage among the underclass as if it doesn't matter, when, in fact, it does, when, in fact, marriage affords the most likely rescue from poverty.
New ideas? Forget it. These captives of special interests _ teacher unions among them _ pooh-pooh school vouchers, even if that means disadvantaged children will be disadvantaged adults whose intellectual development was never given a chance.
To many Democrats, the Constitution does not mean what it says except when there is a tactical advantage in discovering that it does. Individualism? They belittle it, as if that principle had not given us greatness. Collectivism? They argue for their own disguised version of it, calling it "social justice," as if history had taught us no lessons about its final futility.
My adaptation to the Democratic disgrace was not to become a Republican, to register as one and cheer for the party no matter what, but to look to the party to offset Democratic deficiencies, just as one might hope the Democrats would offset Republican deficiencies.
I thought maybe this party would fight to let me be my own moral agent, to give free-market vitality a better chance to improve the quality of life for everyone, to stop government when it threatened to diminish us citizens, making us into little, bitty entities that do not much matter in the big, federal scheme of things.
Once again, though, a party is leaving me, most dramatically through record federal spending that in ways gross and subtle contradicts the party's own best instincts, its promises, its past and its integrity. You do not stop the federal government's wild, clumsy dance by rewarding the performance with still more billions of dollars, and you do not serve the nation at large with endless favors for congressional districts.
There's more _ for instance, Republican support in Congress for President Bush's worst errors, such as his programs for Medicare drugs and farm subsidies, and lack of support for his best initiatives, such as reforming Social Security with private investment accounts.
In the end, I still trust Republicans more than Democrats, whose defeatism could wreck us in the war on terror and whose European-style, semi-socialist urging for welfare-state enlargements could make another France out of us, a once proud land due for lick-boot humiliation. But I do not trust them very much. It would be worse for the Republic if the Democrats win the House this November, but to what extent I am not sure.
