By Jeffrey A. Rendall
Socialism is the 800-pound gorilla in every Democrat’s campaign. They can’t tell the truth
It goes without saying there’s been a great deal of discussion regarding the Democrat party of late and the ideological direction they appear to be headed in, but one reason why Democrat candidates and politicians encountered such difficulty is the utter lack of guiding philosophies or principles to “sell” to voters.
Democrats haven’t gelled as a cohesive party. This is partly due to the leadership void that haunts them at virtually every strata of the faction.
The GOP has President Donald J. Trump. Not everything he does is popular, but Republicans don’t lack for direction. Democrats can’t even decide on whether they’re socialists or not. What gives?
In a pleasantly toned opinion piece (for a Democrat, that is) titled, “House vote condemning socialism reveals problems for Democrats”, pollsters Doug Schoen and Carly Cooperman wrote at The Hill recently:
“If Democrats do not want socialists to define their party, they must define it themselves. Their agenda should combine secure borders with an earned pathway to citizenship, fiscal responsibility with targeted investments and practical solutions for the affordability crisis, support for allies like Israel alongside responsible diplomacy, improving public safety and a commitment to capitalism that expands opportunities to lift more Americans up and rewards hard work and innovation.
“These positions should not be divisive, and reflect the kind of pragmatic, center-left agenda that can appeal to both the Democratic base and to independent, swing voters who decide elections in battleground states.
“Ultimately, even if Republicans missed a chance to score political points or exacerbate Democrats’ ideological battle, this still highlighted a genuine Democratic vulnerability. Moderate and center-left Democrats should use this moment to not just oppose Trump, but to define the party around economic growth, affordability, public safety, secure borders, and effective government. [Emphasis added]”
Sounds great, don’t it? If I’m not mistaken, this is the same practical secular sermon that longtime Democrat honks like Ragin’ Cajun James Carville has preached for decades now, basically imploring their party brethren (including sisters, obviously) to grow beyond their own skins in order to speak in terms that “real” people understand.
The only issue here? Democrats no longer believe in these “moderate” proposals. Not that they ever did. Rush Limbaugh devoted his entire radio career to exposing the fallacy of the Democrats’ arguments and to refute the notion that Dems like Big Bubba Bill Clinton and senile Joe Biden were middle-of-the-road and not really liberal.
You can probably throw “The One”, Barack Obama, into this ideologically nebulous category as well, though it’s my impression Obama never tried that hard to make himself out to be anything other than a former “Choom Gang” member who sought to blow (pot) smoke into Americans’ eyes to make them think what they were getting was something other than blanket reverse racism and the precursors of socialism.
Democrats are having an even tougher time disguising what they stand for these days.
Taking Schoen’s and Cooperman’s list of desirable traits Democrats should be touting — economic growth, affordability, public safety, secure borders, and effective government – and breaking these concepts down to their bare essence, you’ll find Democrats don’t actually believe in any of them. Some Democrats claim to champion the core principles, but they don’t in practice.
— Economic growth? – Sure, I’m guessing most Dems would say they’re in favor of it, but to a man (or woman) they’d have a hard time defining how economies grow and the policies they’d enact to promote it. Most, if not all Democrats, advocate hiking tax rates to extract wealth from those with means so politicians and bureaucrats can choose how to rearrange and redistribute the loot.
“The rich should ‘pay their fair share’”, Democrats blather. Or, as is popular with weak-kneed losers like local Virginia Democrat Elaine Luria (who is running to win back her seat that she lost a few years ago), the Republicans give “tax breaks for billionaires”.
Well, Democrats, how do you propose to grow the economy by stealing from the very people who have the capital and incentive to use it to expand wealth creation – i.e. expansion — opportunities? Higher taxes don’t grow the economy. So, how do Democrats think the GDP number will inflate by what they’d plan on doing?
— Affordability? – Democrats all-but created the “affordability” controversy, and now they’re hoping to milk the inflation conundrum for all they can get politically. As everyone remembers, prices soared during senile Joe Biden’s presidency, fueled by trillions begged for and appropriated by Democrats to lull the American public into supporting “free money” through transfer payments to… just about everyone.
Democrats suggest “affordability” is alleviated or solved by stimulus payments. If stuff costs more, we’ll just give the people checks to cover the increases! It’s straight out of the brain of Maxine Waters or Elizabeth Warren, isn’t it?
Democrats used to fondly encourage government sponsorship of “Green Jobs” and the like, which purportedly would, according to them, clean the environment and put people to work at the same time. The problem is no one wanted the higher costs associated with “Green Energy” and it didn’t make life more affordable, either.
Companies like Solyndra were a scam from the outset. Remember that?
— Public Safety? – Democrats want public safety? They do? How would they achieve it?
Democrats are always working to restrict or eliminate gun rights, and they’ve more or less called to defund police departments, oppose ICE’s existence (and its mission to deport criminal aliens), stood up against deployment of national guard forces on crime-ridden city streets and, through the court system, fought tougher penalties for criminal offenders.
So how would Democrats improve public safety? Would any Democrat actually say they’re in favor of more police? Or they’d broaden a citizen’s self-defense right to protect their persons and property?
Suggesting Democrats want public safety doesn’t pass the laugh test.
— Secure borders? – Speaking of not passing the laugh test, how would Democrats secure our borders?
Would they merely adopt the Trump policies that have worked wonders to drastically reduce illegal immigration since he took office? To do so would essentially concede that the border was not secure under Democrat policies, and admit that they were lying the whole time when the Biden/Harris administration was at the helm.
Democrats don’t like secure borders. Strong enforcement cuts off their source of future (or current?) voters to supply their reason for being a little longer.
— And lastly, “Effective Government”? – What does this mean to a Democrat?
On its surface, “effective government” (to Democrats) equates to economic regulation and growing government bureaucracies so as to theoretically provide additional services for Americans. It also means putting the brakes on the Trump MAGA agenda, since the entire foundation for Democrat campaigns this year is to argue that Trump’s government has not been effective.
Like him or not, support him or not, Donald Trump has been very successful at running the government. Trump has achieved results in so many areas that Democrats have become conditioned to opposing everything he’s for, even when Trump’s policies make perfect sense.
Why wouldn’t Americans want to capture and deport illegal alien criminals and accused felons? Who’s against that? Isn’t ensuring that sane laws are adhered to the very essence of “effective government”? How would Democrats propose to make government more “effective”? What have they got to offer other than simply resisting everything Trump does?
Why do Democrats oppose the White House ballroom? Wouldn’t a Democrat president use it too? After the recent assassination attempts involving the president, can’t Democrats see the need to bolster security?
Democrats don’t make sense, and that’s why they’ll continue to struggle despite Schoen’s and Cooperman’s pleas for Democrat candidates to talk less about socialism and more about subjects Americans are open to.
Liberals and leftists often speak of “investments” to help the American economy, but what “investments” do they favor? A private citizen takes his money and steers it to growth enterprises with an eye towards making a profit or building a business. Democrats think “investments” mean dumping more money into public education institutions that don’t produce anything other than foster more leftist thinking and offer fodder for bloated teacher’s unions.
People don’t want it. Democrat “investments” are essentially socialism. But politicians and candidates can’t talk about it lest they expose the ruse.
Democrats face a major dilemma. They can’t tell voters what they intend to do. Republicans have President Trump to level with the public, and there’s an agenda to campaign on. Democrats hide what they really plan to do and, once in office, run away from their true intentions.
Can Democrats define their party before the socialists do it for them? I wouldn’t bet on it.
Jeff Rendall is editor and publisher of GolfintheUSA.com and has written about golf and politics for over a quarter of a century. A non-practicing attorney from California, he moved to the east coast three decades ago to pursue and combine his interests in all things American history and culture. Jeff has worked as an intern on Capitol Hill and in various capacities in grassroots organizing and conservative organizations and publications, including a nearly two-decade stint at ConservativeHQ.com. Column republishing or other inquiries: Rendall@msn.com .