It's The Individual-Stupid!
Kelsey Grammer is thinking of running for political office. He told a TV interviewer maybe he’ll try for the U.S. House of Representatives. When asked why he is a Republican he answered, “I believe the individual is sacred.” And that’s it, isn’t it? That is one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats. To be a Democrat your primary identification must be as one of their approved groups. Women are great, but only some women. Lesbians are approved, but then that is all they can be. Women who stay at home to raise their kids are not approved. Democrats do not do the cookie baking stand by your man Tammy Wynette thing and whoever does has the same place in society as do women in, say, Saudi Arabia-that is none.
Organizationally it is easier to deal with and respond to people in groups: the larger the better. But, that is a socialist mentality and it is not only a poor way to organize a society, it is also the polar opposite of individual liberty. In fact it makes the concept of a pursuit of happiness for the masses irrelevant as it works against giving the most opportunity to the greatest possible number of citizens. For decades American Blacks have voted on the Democrat plantation. This has given a very few tremendous wealth and prestige, but has done almost nothing for poor blacks, whether living in an urban ghetto or in the rural south. As noted in an earlier post, blacks who are Democrats are good; blacks who are Republicans are at best Uncle Toms. Of all the groups Democrats recognize, those who receive the least tolerance for individuality and independent thinking are black-Americans.
The Washington Post Outlook section on June 11 ran an entire section titled “A Step by Step Guide for Democrats: How to reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory.” (Bias? Nah.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html In none of the six articles or the accompanying numerous quotes was the word individual or the concept of individuality mentioned. Responsibility was mentioned once in connection with Bill Clinton (now there’s an oxymoron for you), but you cannot endorse responsibility as a viable precept without a concept of individuality. It is individuals who must be responsible in order to build responsible and responsive institutions and societies.
On the other hand, there were not any policy prescriptions either. There was much looking for someone outside their ranks to blame. Twenty years ago it was Ronald Reagan, now, of course, it is George W. Bush. Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said on TV that the party delayed its planned presentation of the “Democrat New Direction for America,” their version of the Gingrich “Contract with America,” out of “...respect for President Bush and the troops.” In other words, the President went to Iraq and stepped on their news cycle. The Democrat search for a convenient bogeyman to blame for their inability to win elections is probably the only time they think in terms of the value of an individual.
There was much fussing about Iraq. Those on the far left, who are now in virtual control of the party, are very angry at all those who voted for the war, but they save their special enmity for those who voted affirmatively and now say it was a mistake. Enter John Kerry and Peter Beinart of The New Republic, whose basic message now regarding the war is “Nevermind!” Beinart in “Don’t be a Control Freak: Ask for Help” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901999.tml posits that the Democrat party go back to emphasizing international cooperation and issues, such as “global warming or Guantanamo Bay.” He praises Bill Clinton for nudging the U.S. into action in the Balkans-never mind the man campaigned on intervening in 1992, but despite repeated urging did not act for four years. At the same time he dismisses “coalitions of the willing” where individual nations decide to join together for a specific cause. Beinart opts for strengthening, as in giving more money to, various international organizations. Apparently we are not giving enough of our tax dollars to the United Nations to either steal it or to pay peacekeeping soldiers to rape seven year olds.
Al From and Bruce Reed advocate a return to a centrist position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902006.html They dub this “Clintonism” and insist it “...has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience.” Yet without a do-nothing Clinton White House there would have been no need for a Bush presidency. To bolster their idea, they give the Clintons credit for welfare reform and a balanced budget, which are, as we all know, Republican precepts. David Sirota, on the other hand, defines the center as being somewhere in San Francisco,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902000.html emphasizing the Bob Shrum “people vs. the powerful” and saying nothing about the individual or the liberty of same. According to Michael Grunwald, “It makes sense to be skeptical of Shrum’s influence in the Democratic Party: he has an unblemished record of advising failed presidential candidates and making buckets of money doing so...” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html.
In “Always the Party of what Went Wronghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902001.html The Post’s Dan Balz comments on the Democrat Party’s collective psychosis. They “...are experienced at assembling learned conferences to debate their future (while spending most of their time looking longingly at their past.)” In the last year alone they have had at least three national meetings to decide what they collectively believe, giving the distinct impression that their individual members are not allowed to have their own individual thoughts, but must hew to the party line. Not only that, but there is no single unifying theme for the members of the Democrat Party to rally around such as the Republicans have in individual liberty. “These are dark days for the Republican Party,” writes Grunwald who goes on to explain the schisms he sees in the GOP. But his analysis fails because he either refuses to see or simply cannot get beyond his own biases to see the fact that all those so-called schisms do unite around that one potent idea of individual liberty. Balz sums up by opining that “If...the Democrats fall short on Nov. 7 ...the first panel will convene at 9 a.m. on Nov. 8 at the Press Club. Live on C-SPAN. The topic: ‘Paradise Lost: How the GOP’s Midterm Victories Demonstrate the Enduring Power of the Democratic Message.” As a lover of the ironic and a C-PAN junkie, I am for sure looking forward to that program.
David Sirota, expanding on the Shrum theory does the usual free trade corporation and capitalism bashing. To dismiss this theory one needs only to look at those countries where capitalism, with individuals making individual choices, reigns and compare them with countries where that is not the case. Are people better off in the Sudan or in the USA? Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations “Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
This is all not to say that rugged individualism is the end all and be all of society. But, it is an idea that is part of the American psyche and that always has and hopefully always will appeal to American voters. When Democrats talk of inclusiveness and civil rights, they are talking about interest groups, not individuals, and specifically groups with lots of money for campaign donations.
As the Democrats ponder James Carville’s advice “...to moderate or at least play down their support for abortion, gay rights and gun control...” they might want to look at voters as individuals with individual issues. Now that I think of it they have gone at least part way to doing that by engineering the nomination of a Republican-James Webb- to compete with a Republican-George Allen-in the Virginia Senate race. We can judge real progress for the Democrats when they nominate a Republican to compete against a traditional Democrat.
Organizationally it is easier to deal with and respond to people in groups: the larger the better. But, that is a socialist mentality and it is not only a poor way to organize a society, it is also the polar opposite of individual liberty. In fact it makes the concept of a pursuit of happiness for the masses irrelevant as it works against giving the most opportunity to the greatest possible number of citizens. For decades American Blacks have voted on the Democrat plantation. This has given a very few tremendous wealth and prestige, but has done almost nothing for poor blacks, whether living in an urban ghetto or in the rural south. As noted in an earlier post, blacks who are Democrats are good; blacks who are Republicans are at best Uncle Toms. Of all the groups Democrats recognize, those who receive the least tolerance for individuality and independent thinking are black-Americans.
The Washington Post Outlook section on June 11 ran an entire section titled “A Step by Step Guide for Democrats: How to reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory.” (Bias? Nah.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html In none of the six articles or the accompanying numerous quotes was the word individual or the concept of individuality mentioned. Responsibility was mentioned once in connection with Bill Clinton (now there’s an oxymoron for you), but you cannot endorse responsibility as a viable precept without a concept of individuality. It is individuals who must be responsible in order to build responsible and responsive institutions and societies.
On the other hand, there were not any policy prescriptions either. There was much looking for someone outside their ranks to blame. Twenty years ago it was Ronald Reagan, now, of course, it is George W. Bush. Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said on TV that the party delayed its planned presentation of the “Democrat New Direction for America,” their version of the Gingrich “Contract with America,” out of “...respect for President Bush and the troops.” In other words, the President went to Iraq and stepped on their news cycle. The Democrat search for a convenient bogeyman to blame for their inability to win elections is probably the only time they think in terms of the value of an individual.
There was much fussing about Iraq. Those on the far left, who are now in virtual control of the party, are very angry at all those who voted for the war, but they save their special enmity for those who voted affirmatively and now say it was a mistake. Enter John Kerry and Peter Beinart of The New Republic, whose basic message now regarding the war is “Nevermind!” Beinart in “Don’t be a Control Freak: Ask for Help” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901999.tml posits that the Democrat party go back to emphasizing international cooperation and issues, such as “global warming or Guantanamo Bay.” He praises Bill Clinton for nudging the U.S. into action in the Balkans-never mind the man campaigned on intervening in 1992, but despite repeated urging did not act for four years. At the same time he dismisses “coalitions of the willing” where individual nations decide to join together for a specific cause. Beinart opts for strengthening, as in giving more money to, various international organizations. Apparently we are not giving enough of our tax dollars to the United Nations to either steal it or to pay peacekeeping soldiers to rape seven year olds.
Al From and Bruce Reed advocate a return to a centrist position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902006.html They dub this “Clintonism” and insist it “...has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience.” Yet without a do-nothing Clinton White House there would have been no need for a Bush presidency. To bolster their idea, they give the Clintons credit for welfare reform and a balanced budget, which are, as we all know, Republican precepts. David Sirota, on the other hand, defines the center as being somewhere in San Francisco,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902000.html emphasizing the Bob Shrum “people vs. the powerful” and saying nothing about the individual or the liberty of same. According to Michael Grunwald, “It makes sense to be skeptical of Shrum’s influence in the Democratic Party: he has an unblemished record of advising failed presidential candidates and making buckets of money doing so...” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html.
In “Always the Party of what Went Wronghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902001.html The Post’s Dan Balz comments on the Democrat Party’s collective psychosis. They “...are experienced at assembling learned conferences to debate their future (while spending most of their time looking longingly at their past.)” In the last year alone they have had at least three national meetings to decide what they collectively believe, giving the distinct impression that their individual members are not allowed to have their own individual thoughts, but must hew to the party line. Not only that, but there is no single unifying theme for the members of the Democrat Party to rally around such as the Republicans have in individual liberty. “These are dark days for the Republican Party,” writes Grunwald who goes on to explain the schisms he sees in the GOP. But his analysis fails because he either refuses to see or simply cannot get beyond his own biases to see the fact that all those so-called schisms do unite around that one potent idea of individual liberty. Balz sums up by opining that “If...the Democrats fall short on Nov. 7 ...the first panel will convene at 9 a.m. on Nov. 8 at the Press Club. Live on C-SPAN. The topic: ‘Paradise Lost: How the GOP’s Midterm Victories Demonstrate the Enduring Power of the Democratic Message.” As a lover of the ironic and a C-PAN junkie, I am for sure looking forward to that program.
David Sirota, expanding on the Shrum theory does the usual free trade corporation and capitalism bashing. To dismiss this theory one needs only to look at those countries where capitalism, with individuals making individual choices, reigns and compare them with countries where that is not the case. Are people better off in the Sudan or in the USA? Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations “Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
This is all not to say that rugged individualism is the end all and be all of society. But, it is an idea that is part of the American psyche and that always has and hopefully always will appeal to American voters. When Democrats talk of inclusiveness and civil rights, they are talking about interest groups, not individuals, and specifically groups with lots of money for campaign donations.
As the Democrats ponder James Carville’s advice “...to moderate or at least play down their support for abortion, gay rights and gun control...” they might want to look at voters as individuals with individual issues. Now that I think of it they have gone at least part way to doing that by engineering the nomination of a Republican-James Webb- to compete with a Republican-George Allen-in the Virginia Senate race. We can judge real progress for the Democrats when they nominate a Republican to compete against a traditional Democrat.
posted by Gunston Hall Moderator at 8:37 AM
1 Comments:
Perfect.
Post a Comment
<< Home