Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bugscoe, Nov 17, 2010.

  1. Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive
    By Monty Pelerin
    November 17, 2010

    After the election two years ago, Time Magazine questioned whether the Elephant had become an extinct political animal. The most recent election raised questions as to whether the Donkey should be deemed an endangered species. Questioning either party's ability to survive is reasonable, and it helps sell magazines. However one or two elections are not sufficient to life-death assessments.

    Political parties are not immortal. They are born and eventually die. Survivability is dependent upon Darwinian adaptations rather than a genetically determined lifespan. Actuarial analyses can be reasonably attempted if they are based on longer periods.

    Enormous change in the American landscape is coming. The "pendulum theory" of politics -- one party disappoints, is removed, and then is returned when the other party disappoints -- is too simplistic to capture major trends. Peggy Noonan's recent take is an example of such analysis.

    The Democratic Party is unlikely to survive. This outcome is effected by Obama, but not directly caused by him. Likewise, the latest election results are confirming rather than causal. The party's amazing success since the 1930s contained the seed of its demise.

    The Meaning of the Recent Elections

    In the two most recent elections, each political party was soundly, sequentially rejected, but for different reasons. Simply and bluntly:
    • The Republicans were tossed out because they did not govern according to their principles.
    • The Democrats were tossed out because they did govern according to their principles.
    One party lost because it misbehaved; the other because it revealed itself.

    Obama's election was erroneously interpreted as a mandate for radical change by left-wing loonies. In spite of his uniqueness, Obama's election was more a vote against Republican spending, hypocrisy, and general misbehavior than a vote for Democrats. Socialist Obama unwisely tried to impose his vision on the country.

    His overreach scared many and unleashed the coerciveness that George Washington warned about: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

    Government arrogance and arbitrariness initiated a groundswell of concern that coalesced into the Tea Party movement. Ridiculed by the elites in both major parties, the Tea Party provided an outlet for voter rage, a point still not grasped by either party.

    The last election was a referendum on Obama and his extremist policies. The Democrat raw grasp for power ensures that they will not do well in the next several elections. This is troubling, but not enough to destroy the Party.

    Party Principles

    The alleged principles of both major parties need to be understood. "Alleged" is a necessary modifier because these principles are little more than marketing props that appear when useful and disappear otherwise. Groucho Marx probably best captured the flexibility of both parties when he said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."

    Republican principles are closer to George Washington's view of government -- government is necessary but dangerous. Hence, it is best kept small and weak. Republicans claim to stand for limited government because it allows for maximum individual freedom. These principles require a governing model that focuses on less tax, less spending, and less regulation. The keyword is "less," as in less government.

    Democrat principles are based on government being a force for good. Government is presumed necessary to help individuals and ensure "social justice" (a term impossible to reasonably define). This philosophy leads to bigger government, as in more spending, more taxes, and more regulatory control. For Democrats, the keyword is "more," as in more government.


    Getting elected (and then reelected) is the primary political motivation. But getting elected and governing are two different activities. Party principles have to serve both functions. Often they serve one better than the other. Content from an e-mail cleverly illustrates the difference:
    Johnny's election campaign is similar to Republicans', while Mary's is similar to Democrats'. Republican principles are not as effective in an election campaign when competing against free ice cream. Sacrifice, abstinence, and/or self-reliance are a form of political "root canal" when compared to "freebies."

    Not surprisingly, voters have chosen ice cream more often than root canals. In the 66 years from 1945 forward, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency for twelve years, and Republicans two years. Democrats controlled both Houses for 23 years, and Republicans six years, with five of those since 1995.

    The ice cream strategy was implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Arguably, this strategy created the modern Democratic Party. It rescued a floundering party and enabled it to become dominant. From a political standpoint, the strategy was pure genius. From an economic standpoint, it produced a slower growth path for the country.

    Flaws in the Democrat Strategy

    One problem with the "ice cream" strategy is that you cannot promise ice cream to everyone. As a result, the political base for Democrats developed as a motley collection of beneficiaries "bought" at various times. These include minorities, government employees, big labor, trial lawyers, teachers' unions, gays, radical women's groups, and environmentalists, among others.

    Another problem is the lack of commonality. Whatever is provided to one group demands that less be available for another. An underlying tension between groups must always be managed. This surfaced when Dems tried to attract Hispanics. Blacks looked at this as a threat to their importance.

    Governing presents another problem. Interest group politics, while perhaps a good election strategy, is not conducive to effective governing.

    The fatal flaw in the strategy, however, is the dependence on the continuing flow of goodies. Once you run out of ice cream, you can no longer buy or maintain your "clients." As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."

    Thatcher's end point has arrived. For eighty years, government grew, as did the welfare state. The Democrat strategy was dependent upon this flow of largesse. Funds are no longer there, and the Democrat strategy is now bankrupt.

    The Ice Cream Is Gone

    Welfare states around the world are insolvent. Welfare State R.I.P. discusses the debt burdens. Governments will begin defaulting on promises and obligations. It is mathematically impossible to honor all promises. The ice cream is gone, and so is the key to eighty years of Democrat success.

    Voters know government is insolvent. That knowledge was the driving force behind the Tea Party movement. While no one wants his or her goodies reduced or removed, a majority recognizes the problems and is willing to vote to at least stop the growth in government.

    This new reality is devastating for Democrats. They are dependent upon a diverse, disjointed collection of groups pieced together over the years by ad hoc, quid pro quo tactics. Holding a disparate coalition together was tenuous when benefits were available. Holding them together when benefits are being cut is unlikely.

    The Democrats have no coherent message other than bigger government and more benefits. Both parts of that message are now obsolete. Is it possible for them to develop a meaningful strategy that can keep them alive? I think not. Their coalition is too fragmented to hold under a governing rather than electing strategy. Furthermore, the groups are so conditioned to "more" that it is unlikely that they can be maintained under the "less" strategy in store for the country.

    It is not impossible for the Democratic Party to survive, but only unlikely. If there is a strategy that they might successfully adopt, it is apt to be that we will give you less than you got before but more than the other guys will. With so many voters sucking on the government teat, it is possible that such a strategy could be implemented with some success.

    My guess is that the Republicans will become the party of the left, although not much left of where they are today. A new party will evolve to the right of the Republicans, probably based on an original interpretation of the Constitution. Many Democrats will migrate to the Republican Party, while many Republicans will migrate to the newly formed party.

    This realignment, which will take place over a decade or two, will formalize a major shift rightward in the politics and policies of the country. Similar adjustments will occur in other social welfare states.
  2. rew


    Here is why the Republicans will not survive:

    1. Once elected they never adhere to their principles, so people get disgusted and vote them out. In practice Republicans in office are simply Democrats with tax cuts -- which they pay for with more borrowing. Not even Reagan actually cut the size of government, and Bush never even pretended to want to.

    2. The only racial/ethnic group that consistently votes for Republicans is whites. (About 60% in the last election.) Two thirds of Hispanics vote for Democrats and 90% of blacks do. Guess which racial group is declining as a percentage of the population every year? (Hint: It's not Hispanics or blacks.)

    Blow hard Tim Wise is very pleased with this demographic reality:


    It doesn't matter that the Democrats will bankrupt this country. Two thirds of Hispanics and 90% of blacks will keep voting for them anyway.
  3. Unrelenting hypocrisy.

    However, they will survive. Like cockroaches, they may placed in a deep freeze from time to time, but they will periodically be allowed to thaw out and will then continue about their business. Cockroaches are the ultimate survivors. If they had a political affiliation, there is little doubt they would be Republican.

    Edit: I thought I came up with the idea first, but I was beaten to it:


  4. Didn't know about Tim Wise. Thanks, good find.
  5. jem


    Its funny watching socialists who still want fee ice cream.
  6. Liberty-Loving Latinos Outshine Loud-Mouthed Leftist Latinos
    Hispanics owe a debt of gratitude to African Americans for showing us what allegiance to the Democrat Party can bring.
    November 17, 2010 - by Chris Salcedo

    If the presidency of Barack Obama was responsible for the conservative awakening in the Hispanic community, then the 2010 midterm elections may go down as the event that changed America’s perception of the Hispanic community. Thanks to hardcore leftist elected officials and high-profile Hispanic activists, America has held the view that all Latinos believe in law breaking, open borders, and the importation of Latin American socialism into the United States. These liberals have tried to follow the template set up by the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It goes something like this: Anoint yourself the leader of a minority community by perpetuating victimhood and government reliance. And then take your voting bloc and sell your community down the river in exchange for a seat of power at the Democrats’ table. There was only one problem with the plan; Hispanics didn’t want to give up on the American dream just yet. Not the left’s DREAM Act — the actual American dream.

    One of the best results of the conservative awakening in the Hispanic community was the surge of Latinos elected to high office in the 2010 elections. Marco Rubio will be the next senator from Florida. Republican Brian Sandoval will be Nevada’s first Latino governor. Susana Martinez is the newly elected GOP Latina who replaces a liberal Hispanic governor in New Mexico. Bill Flores beat Pelosi rubber stamp Chet Edwards in Texas’ 17th district. And while we’re in the Lone Star State, Quico Canseco defeated Ciro Rodriguez. Bear in mind that Rodriguez is one of those Latinos whose values are more in line with Fidel Castro than an American congressman. These are just a few examples of Latinos — over six million voted in the 2010 midterms — flexing their conservative muscles and making their views known through conservative representatives.

    I’ve long held that Hispanics owe a debt of gratitude to African Americans. They, more than any group, have shown us what allegiance to the Democratic Party can bring: the disintegration of the African American family, the targeting of black mothers for abortions by left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood, the lowering of the bar for African American students in state-sponsored schools. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Oddly enough, I have the Reverend Al Sharpton to thank for my current view. Back in 2003, when the good reverend was seeking the Democratic nomination for president, he said this: “We must no longer be the political mistresses of the Democratic Party.” It was a rare moment of honesty and admission that he and compatriot Jesse Jackson may have made a mistake in taking the African American community down the road of victimhood, represented by the Democrats, instead of the road of empowerment, represented by the conservative wing of the GOP. Sharpton’s words changed my life. I was bound and determined that my family, any Hispanics that would listen, and I would never become victims and reliant on an all-powerful government for our existence. But I knew I had powerful forces aligned against me. I saw many leftist Latinos seeking to take the Hispanic community down Sharpton’s road of victimhood.

    Take your pick of any Latino hate group. La Raza, Nation of Aztlan, the Brown Berets — these are the anti-American groups that have sullied the reputations of all Latinos. They get a lot of press. But they’re not alone. Groups like LULAC, Border Angels, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and countless others have made it their mission to portray Latinos as a bunch of victims who need to be compensated for some slight perpetrated by white America. They shout slogans like, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.” They fly Mexican flags on the streets of America to protest adherence to the law. They protest semantics, calling anyone a hate monger who dares call those that break the law “illegal immigrants.” It’s all part of a well-coordinated campaign to blur the lines between American Latinos and those that enter the United States without permission. The idea is to make citizen Latinos invested in those who break U.S. law to come here. And it has been wildly successful. Many first-generation Hispanics still regard illegals, from any Latin-American country, as “their people.” But the veil of deception perpetrated by the aforementioned leftist groups has begun to lift.

    There are a couple of reasons for the weakening of the leftists grip over the Hispanic community. The large lurch left shoved down America’s throats by elected liberals is one reason. Since Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama took the reins of power, Americans of all ethnic stripes have been treated to a front row seat of unvarnished liberal socialism. The Hispanic community had a different reaction from other minority groups. The fracture is a result of the common denominator shared by most Hispanics. Many have fled or had ancestors who fled countries where leftists stifled prosperity and ground the human spirit to dust. It was the primary reason that Hispanics fled their home countries to live in a land of individual freedom. Latinos with any historical perspective took one look at the “axis of socialism” represented by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and recoiled in disgust. The second big reason is generational. Fewer and fewer Hispanics feel any fidelity to the nations of their “roots.” They are, in short, Americans. They love the fact that they live in a country that was founded on the premise that “we the people” rule. A government “of, by, and for” the people is simply better than governments from nations like Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba. To these “liberty-loving Latinos,” the voices saying they represented the Hispanic community turned out to be leftist apologists who sought to import the same policies that many Hispanics fled from in the decades prior. The liberal, loud-mouthed, leftist Latinos are not able to contain the conservative awakening in the Hispanic community. The conservatives are organizing.

    In past articles I’ve talked at length about the various conservative Latino groups that are springing up all over the country. From the Conservative Hispanic Society to Amigos De Patriots, Hispanics that reject leftist thought are finding a home and a voice. Another group is the The Americano. This is Newt Gingrich’s Hispanic partnership web site. It has long been my view that liberal Latinos are so adamantly against Hispanics learning English because they’re afraid that Hispanics will begin to think for themselves as a result. Many leftist Latinos want to control the information that Spanish speakers get. This is illustrated in many of the so-called Spanish language “news” sources here in the U.S. For the most part these sources are the Spanish equivalent to MSNBC, biased, liberal and unfair. The Americano is dedicated to making sure that Latinos have all the facts and perspectives so they can make up their own minds. This December, The Americano is holding its first Hispanic forum. The Americano celebrates the vibrant and rich traditions of Hispanic heritage. It strives to give Latinos who believe in traditional Hispanic values a voice. This forum will be the first of many that will acknowledge Hispanics’ role of strengthening, not destroying, Western civilization. Hispanics will come together in united purpose and launch one of the first battles for the heart and soul of the Hispanic community.

    Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” The forces of liberalism have sought to change what makes America “good.” And they will not give up their power easily. The battle has been joined. The phrase “we’re taking our country back!” — though cliché in recent years — still is the best description of the conflict. Now, Hispanics are pledging to defeat leftist thought and polices that have done so much to enslave countless millions, douse the flame of liberty, and kill the human spirit. Some Latinos operate from first-hand knowledge of the destructive power of liberalism. Others are educated in world events and have no desire to sell-out their children’s shot at the American dream. Whatever their reason, they are here to fight. They are here to fight because there’s no place else to go. If America falls the way of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico, there is no other beacon of freedom on Earth to run to.
  7. Ricter


    It's funny watching capitalists who think they can sell ice cream to the broke laborers who made them their money and ice cream.

  8. [​IMG]
  9. rew


    Tim Wise is a white man (Jewish father, Scottish mother) who makes his living going to universities and getting paid large fees to lecture on the evils of white skin privilege. Hating Whitey is big business in academia and Wise has been cashing in for some time now.
  10. Like watching their reaction when their ice cream on their cone slides off onto the sidewalk like on a hot summer day.

    The Socialist Party(ies) will survive by force as socialism runs its inevitable, predictable, self-destructive course when all but the few are left in permanent squalor with no way out.

    Socialism: The Great Destroyer of Societies and Cultures. It's almost impossible to rebuild after such destruction. Socialism: It's a process!

    "It's going to be different this time. We have the Great One at the helm."
    #10     Nov 17, 2010