Democrats I

In the interest of fairness, I've written a few articles trying to explain the Republican way of thinking, and so today, thought I'd look into the Democrats.

No wonder these people are confused. The name "Democratic party" was adopted during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), and Democrats trace their origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792. Right off the bat, they probably don't know whether they're Democrats or Republicans. Should I lean left or right? Am I in favour of this proposal or not? Should I support this law or not? Seems old Tommy tried to have his cake and eat it too by naming the party Democratic-Republican.

The party seems to have split since William Jennings Bryan 's takeover in 1896. Please note here that Andrew Jackson coined the name Democratic Party between 1829 and 1837 and it took at least another 59 years before Democrats knew which side of the fence they were on.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its conservative Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles. And this is understandable. Civil rights are just that, rights. The Republicans are wrong here if they want to keep blacks from acquiring an education or Jews from joining the local golf and country club. Just as we all agree that abusing animals is wrong, abusing people is also wrong. We live in a free society and everyone should enjoy each and every freedom offered to anyone who lives here. But it seems the rift between the Dems and the Reps is widening. The Viet Nam War in the 1960's opened a split on foreign military intervention that still haunts us today.

The Democratic party favours farmers, labourers, labour unions, and religious and ethnic minorities. It opposes unregulated business and finance, and favours progressive income taxes. There is nothing wrong with making the plight of farmers or labourers easier. Labour unions are needed, but on the other hand, they need to be held in check. As to unregulated business and finance, I never got a job from a poor man and if I have to bend over to get a business man to locate in my hometown by giving him tax breaks, so be it. Maybe they don't pay up front in the way of taxes, but the business man is the first to step up to the plate and support the artsy-fartsy art galleries, sculpture studios and rap music studios the Dems seem to think we can't live without. (BTW, I am enough of a conservative to believe that 'rap' and 'music' should never be used in the same sentence, but I do it here to get a point across)

Since the 1970's, environmentalism has been a major new component. No one wants to cut down a tree. No one except the guy who's job depends on his making his living cutting down trees. No one wants to kill a whale, except the guy who's village is depending on the meat. No one wants to kill a Harp seal except the guy who wants to piss off PETA. Live and let live is a fine credo to live by, but let's get a grip folks. Some supposedly anti-environmental activities put food on your plate.

In recent decades, the party advocates most civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services. Let's take a look at this. Most civil liberties? Which ones do they oppose? The ones they don't like, the ones that may, in their little minds, remind them of Republicanism? Social freedoms, equal rights and equal opportunity notwithstanding , Democrats believe in a free enterprise system 'tempered by government intervention.' This obviously leads to bigger government as you will never be able to legislate the people enough, which translates into higher taxes to pay for the whole mess. Mr. Mulroney (Conservative) had a Cabinet of 40 Ministers, brought down by ten under Jean Chretien (Liberal) to finally 27 today under Stephen Harper (Conservative). The numbers look good for the Liberals until one considers that Mulroney inherited the government from Pierre Trudeau, had to clean up his mess, and the numbers have been falling under Conservative governments.

The Democrats seem to be in more confusion over the Patriot Act. All Democrats in the U.S. Senate except for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold voted for the USA PATRIOT Act legislation. After voicing concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the Act, the Democrats split on the renewal in 2006. Most Democratic Senators voted to renew it, while most Democratic Representatives voted against renewal. Go figure.

Democrats are opposed to use of torture against individuals apprehended and held prisoner by the military of the United States, and deny that categorizing military prisoners as unlawful combatants excludes them from the rights granted under the Geneva Conventions. Everyone with half a brain is opposed to torture. The Democrats have lately gotten a lot of mileage out of the happenings at Abu Gharib prison. Perhaps they are right when they expose the pictures taken of soldiers humiliating the prisoners and ask the world to revile such goings on. But humiliation certainly is not torture. The people involved were put on trial and punished, as they should have been. Why? Because the Americans play by rules the terrorists blatantly refuse to recognize. Because they are the policemen of the world, the Americans are held to a much higher standard than those they fight against. The Democrats also want all the rights and privileges enjoyed by a true prisoner of war visited upon those held in Guantanamo Bay. This is sheer folly.

Peter Worthington, a war vet himself and a respected journalist, recently visited Cuba and reported on the happenings at Gitmo. He says that "the likes of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various lawyers for detainees have publicized allegations of torture and inhumanity that U.S. government and authorities at Guantanamo routinely deny and dismiss as disinformation." But Democrats have a way of twisting the truth to get you to believe what they want you to.

This whole thing will be a subject of a future rant, so I'll leave it here for the time being. Next time around we will discuss some pretty gritty stuff, so be prepared.