Daily Archives: July 30, 2008

A Party of Deception: Part 1

Politics in the United States today is as divided as it has been since the Federalists Party and the Democratic-Republican Party battled it out between 1787 and 1820. The issues today are the same as they were then, the power and scope of the federal government. However, in the two hundred years between 1808 and 2008 a lot of changes have taken place. Somewhere along the line, the positions of the two major political parties were reversed.

In the years following the establishment of our form of government in 1787, the Federalists Party founded by Alexander Hamilton advocated a big centralized government with far reaching powers and a flexible interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic-Republican Party, founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, stood for a smaller government with limited enumerated powers and strong state governments. After the death of Alexander Hamilton in 1804, the Federalist Party lost its influence and was out of existence by the mid 1820‘s. The Democratic-Republican Party eventually dropped the Republican name and went on to become the Democratic Party of today.

Following the collapse of the Federalists, a number of political parties sprang up in opposition to the Democratic Party. Most were short lived. In the mid nineteenth century, a new party was formed taking the name Republican to reflect its adherence to the republican principles of the original Democratic-Republicans.

Today the Democratic Party holds to most of the principles of the old Federalist Party and the Republican Party supports the primary philosophy of the old Democratic-Republican Party which they now refer to as “federalism”. Is it any wonder the average American is somewhat confused as to which party stands for what?

As of 2004, there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. 72 million were Democrats and 55 million were Republicans, with another 42 million declaring “a pox on both your houses” and registering as Independents.

The biggest change in the two major parties over the past hundred years occurred in the Democratic Party. At the end of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, it began to abandon its historic conservatism and move to the left. According to a Pew Research Center study conducted in 2005 roughly a third of the party members were described as conservatives (Blue Dog Democrats). 20% were described in the study as “underprivileged”, the remaining 46% as liberals. It should be noted that almost all the underprivileged group hold the same political views as the liberals, making the Democratic Party two-thirds liberal.

The division in the body politic today, however, is not based on party loyalty, but rather on political ideology. The real divide we see on Capital Hill and elsewhere is between the socialists on the left which make up the power base of the Democratic Party and the conservatives on the right which make up the power base of the Republican Party.

Not all Democrats are socialists and not all Republicans are conservatives. However, it is obvious that most if not all the decision makers in the Democratic Party adhere to a socialist agenda. To refer to them as socialist, however leaves one open to accusations of “name-calling”, “politics of personal destruction” and “fear mongering“ so, let me clarify what I mean when I label Democrats as socialists and Republicans as conservatives.

The term socialists carries a negative connotation in the minds of most Americans, therefore the left leaning members of the Democratic Party prefer to be called liberals or, more recently, progressives. However, there is an international socialist movement with a number of smaller political parties in America that unabashedly refer to themselves as “socialists”. These parties, both here and abroad, publish volumes of literature describing their political ideology. While the parties themselves are varied and have only loose affiliations with one another, the basic principles that make up their ideology are more or less identical.

Democrats or Republicans who believe in these principles and actively support an agenda based on them should rightly be labeled socialists. To refer to them as liberals or progressives is deceptive and misleading to the American people. The core principles underlying the socialist agenda in America are: Democratic control over means of production, gender equality and equality of sexual lifestyles, centralized democratic government, global citizenship, equitable redistribution of wealth, universal government paid healthcare, and an equitable distribution of income.

Based on these principles the socialist movement in America has established a plan to bring the American government in line with the international socialist agenda. To bring this vision to reality requires major changes in our form of government and culture. Some of these changes involve the destruction of free market capitalism, a new definition of the family unit, the indoctrination of the younger generation and subjugation of individual liberty to the will of the state.

Many have been taking place incrementally over the past two or three generations. We have now reached the point where the leadership of the socialist movement believes they can complete the transformation from a capitalistic, constitutional republic to a centrally controlled, socialistic society during the next one or two administrations. All the tactical components of their plan are in place and the public has been conditioned by eight years of intensive propaganda to accept the changes without too much opposition. In fact, large segments of the population are clamoring already for the government to step in and “fix” the problems that have been created by the partial implementation of socialist policies in the past.

To this end, American socialists have thrown their full support behind the candidacy of Barack Obama. His campaign has benefited from unprecedented funding and the most favorable treatment by the media of any candidate in history. In spite of the fact that Obama is the least qualified candidate ever to be nominated by a major party for the office of President, there is a real possibility their plan will succeed. Abraham Lincoln said “you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can never fool all the people all the time.” In this case, it is only necessary to deceive enough voters for the next three months to get Obama elected President.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend

Since this subject is too involved to cover in one post, we will cover it in a two or three part series. Tomorrow, in Part II we will discuss in more detail the tactics and strategies for dismantling capitalism, fragmenting the culture, and the destruction of the family unit.

Rush Limbaugh Reaches Halfway Mark

At the end of this week, Rush Limbaugh will have completed his first twenty years of “having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.” The next twenty promises to be even more fun as Conservatives gear up to deal with the possibility of America’s first true socialist President in History. Even if Providence intervenes and spares us Barack Obama, we will still be faced with the most entrenched and organized socialist movement to date.

The situation in America today is hardly a laughing matter, but Rush has demonstrated the value of keeping our sense of humor even in the most difficult circumstances. We owe him our thanks for that and so much more. Through many of the past fifty years, it has been difficult to hold on to the conservative principles that have made this country great. From the great depression to the mid-eighties, liberalism was the dominate message heard in our public discourse. The media was dominated by liberalism even more than it is today. Conservatives were routinely referred to on talk shows as “reactionaries”.

Yes, there were a number of talk shows before Rush, both on radio and TV. The difference was they were all liberal and not as widely listened to. Conservative voices were silenced due to the “fairness doctrine” and only the liberal message was allowed to get through. When Ronald Reagan’s administration discarded the fairness doctrine the opportunity for the expression of conservative thought opened up and Rush took advantage of it. He saw the parade of conservatism coming down the street, led by Ronald Reagan, William Buckley and others. Instead of standing on the sidelines looking on, as so many of us did, he picked up the baton, stepped in front of it and has been there ever since.

The liberal left has never understood the phenomenon of Rush Limbaugh. At first, they referred to him as just an entertainer. Indeed, he was and is an entertainer, but that does not account for his unprecedented success. Rush tapped into a need and an audience that has always been there. The average American has always been hard working, honest, patriotic and conservative. The influence of that segment of the population had been suppressed for the past half-century by the FCC and the fairness doctrine.

When Rush—thanks to Ronald Reagan—was afforded the opportunity to come on the air, conservatives began tuning in. Here was someone who was expressing the values and beliefs they had always held but seldom heard expressed in the media. One of the biggest mistakes the left makes is when they believe Rush tells his audience what to think. Conservatives do not tune in to learn what they should think. They tune in to have what they already think validated, and Rush does that better than anyone else.

By that, I do not mean to disparage the value of the Rush Limbaugh Show as a teaching tool. He jokingly tells his audience “we give you the news, and then we tell you what to think about it”. That’s only half-right. He does keep his audience informed on important matters of the day better than anyone else. They decide for themselves what to think about it, however.

I was riding in my car one day with a friend while Rush was on the air. A caller asked Rush what was the one thing to which he attributed his success. Rush very seriously gave the caller a one word answer, “humility”. I though my friend was going to have a coronary he was laughing so hard. After thinking about that answer for a while, I decided Rush was probably right. Rush has a type of humility you often find in great figures of history. It’s that humility that drives them to the height of their accomplishments.

Oh, I know Rush spends a good deal of time boasting about his wealth, the important people he knows, who he played golf with and so on, and sometimes it gets to be quite a bore. In fact, I confess to sometimes deliberately missing the first segment of his show just after he returns from an important event for that reason. However, I know that what seems like bragging to us is really Rush attempting to convince himself that his astronomical and continuing success is for real. My guess is that no one is more in awe of Rush’s success than himself. It’s that nagging doubt about his own importance and personal worthiness for his success that drives him to be the best-informed and best-prepared radio host on the air.

Another thing I admire about Rush is his generosity and total lack of professional jealousy. Some of the top conservative voices in America owe their prominence to the encouragement and support given to them by Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and the late Tony Snow, just to name three.

In the coming eight years we are going to need the anchor of talk radio to keep us from losing faith. Judging by the polls, America seems to be seriously considering turning our government over to Barack Obama, Nancy Polosi, and Harry Reid. I cannot think of any three people in America more opposed to American Ideals than these three. If they are successful, there is no question the constitutional republic that has been America for the past two hundred plus years will cease to exist, to be replaced by a socialist state.

The struggle between socialists and conservatives to destroy or conserve our Constitution and historical American traditions is going to require the continuation of talk radio as the voice of conservatism. That’s why we need Rush Limbaugh for at least another twenty years.