Lord, give me coffee to change things I can change, wine to accept the things I cannot change, and bourbon to forget about the whole mess.
DSA candidates running openly as socialists under the Democrat banner now have 35 seats in the country’s state legislatures. “Tuesday's election night gains for the group were fairly substantial. The Democratic Socialists picked up a historic 15 seats across the country, adding to the 20 members they already have in office.” (more here) Make no mistake about the staging of their socialist ideology as nothing but communism resurgent. The DSA got an enormous boost from socialist Bernie’s candidacy and the fact that he was screwed by the DNC – DSA’s membership surged sixfold over the last few years and it is the fastest growing political organization in the country, primarily abetted by the know-nothing Millennials who now poll around 50% saying they’d rather live under communism than capitalism.
This is part of the extreme or alt-left direction the Democrats have taken under Obama’s reign while telling all their Alinsky lie that it was everyone else that moved to the right while they stood still. Their and the Democrats’ successes (e.g. Virginia and New Jersey) now have openly declared the true nature of the long-sought fundamental transformation. The Republicans are abetting the whole movement by not being able to execute the promised legislative program that got them elected. Formerly right-leaning news outfits like Fox are daily slanting their reports toward the Left’s interpretation of events and history. For example, in recounting the murderous communist century (more here), they include the term ‘Red Scare’ without qualification describing the 1950s, allowing the history-innocent viewer to continue believing that such a post-WW2 fear of communism’s expansion was an unfounded hysteria against just another method of governance. The times they are a’changin’, and a good part of that impetus is powered by Republican impotence.
Given California's unabashed embrace of socialism, how long will it be until the state's Democrats hoist their true colors?
[14nov17 update] The contention by two of our community’s leading progressive intellectuals is that California has gone socialist because the “right wing has pushed their agenda so far off the scale that any socialist bullshit solution looks good in comparison.” (Presuming, of course, that America’s leftwing has maintained its more reasonable proximity to the center.) This conclusion in Mr Crabb’s 947am comment below is detailed in Mr Frisch’s 749am, which itemizes the sins of the state’s Republicans. To wit (item numbers inserted) –
Republican are increasingly irrelevant in California politics because they embraced a political philosophy, largely driven by the national party, that is completely out of step with California residents and voters.
- They demonized Hispanics when they were the rising demographic in the state and lost their support.
- They demonized homosexuals when no one below the age of 40 gives a shit if someone is gay.
- They attack women’s rights to health care when the vast majority of Californians support abortion.
- They claim climate change is a hoax when the vast majority of Californians see it every day.
- They stand up for guns when people are crying out to stop the mass killing; they are whores to the NRA.
- In short, a political party cannot reject the majority of the people and expect to get a majority of the vote.
The above assertions are based on a worldview – which illustrates the two irreconcilable universes in which we live - and lacks evidence to back up the individual assertions.
- “demonized Hispanics” – now there is hyperbole for the pre-educated consumption. The only thing that remotely relates here is the Republicans’ support of secure borders and cessation of welfare programs targeting illegal aliens which makes California an inviting destination from their own dysfunctional and corrupt countries. Republicans have long endorsed guest worker programs that have proven a win-win for alien Hispanics.
- “demonized homosexuals” – Republicans sought to retain the label ‘marriage’ as identifying the traditional union between one man and one woman. There is no desire or attempt to deny them the legal and functional benefits provided by marriage. However, Republicans, in general, do oppose public schools teaching that homosexual unions are normative in the affairs of Man; they have never been and are not now. But that sentiment does not mean that Republicans seek to proscribe, let alone “demonize”, such unions, only that they should be openly recognized as one of several special kinds of socially acceptable relationships that humans have with one another. (The Left has no problem endorsing Islam, globally and in America, which does not share such beliefs.)
- Republicans “attack women’s rights to healthcare”, now really. That kind of patronizing pabulum is really a sad commentary on the demonstrated acumen of the Left’s constituency. First, there is no “right” by women or any other class of people to be provided free healthcare. Second, Republicans simply don’t want the government to get into the abortion business, since ‘women’s healthcare’ is the accepted dog whistle for the poor and prophylactically challenged to understand what party will give them a free pass from unintended parenthood.
- Regarding climate change, the “vast majority of Californians see” what they have been propagandized to see by the media and leftwing public schools. There is no science behind their beliefs; most certainly no accessible science, since the issue has been presented to them as a non-falsifiable religion.
- Yes, Republicans stand up for Second Amendment rights, and continue to pose the question never dealt with in the lamestream and by the local leftwing luminaries. Why pass new and more restrictive gun laws since there is no evidence that the present gun laws don’t work, because these have yet to be either enforced or shown relevant to preventing the “mass killings” which are the claimed objective for constructively denying private ownership of guns in America? Enforce current laws and show how they are ineffective before seeking more laws that will be subsequently ignored by everyone (law enforcement and criminals) save the law-abiding.
- Given the above, this statement should read, ‘a political party, successfully portrayed to reject the majority of wealth-recipient people, can expect to be rejected by these same people in the voting booth (for they know from whence comest their largesse).'
But in the final analysis, all of the above is nothing but a carefully crafted and executed smokescreen by the socialists as part of America’s fundamental transformation that calls for calving individual coastal states from the traditionally constitutional parts of the country through their own well-versed and historical means of fomenting class warfare, demonizing the ‘rich’ and redistributing wealth from the taxpayers to the permanently and growing aggrieved classes who willingly vote for politicians and programs promising free money. It was ever thus.
As an example of a corollary concept, which the Democrat collectivists seek to convince the lightly read, we have their fundamental ideological tenet that tax rates do not affect economic behavior of the wealth producers – i.e. taxpaying workers, entrepreneurs, and businesses. Giving lie to the Democrats’ contention “that marginal tax rates don’t matter to investment and growth” are the “IRS data (which) show an accelerating flight from high-tax states.” More detailed data of such state-to-state income transfers is given in ‘The Great Progressive Tax Escape’ which highlights the huge dollar amounts now leaving ‘tax-the-rich’ states for more suitable fiscal climes. This type of migration hurts most the middle classes of the afflicted states, since it is they, the left behind, whose taxes must subsequently be increased to make up the revenue losses. Again, this bamboozle is one of the Left’s most successfully smoke-screened secrets.
Once more, I want to show appreciation for the fervently argued positions of the Left in these pages. RR welcomes such contention of ideas so as to give readers the opportunity to see for themselves how wide differences in public policies that result from their respective ideological antecedents. The winners and losers in these debates are determined by the individual readers, who in the end must choose for themselves and their families in what kind of country they wish to live.