Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The First Tenant of Liberalism Democrats

The Greeks called it “Polity,” blah blah blah…

The current state of Democrats and Republicans is completely out of whack when it comes to the political animals. I don’t even need to present an argument for jackass Republicans being far more aptly represented by the stubborn donkey, and Democrats remind me of an elephant that’s afraid of a mouse. Maybe those animal symbols were more accurate when they were applied over a hundred years ago, but they just don’t ring true anymore (like the Christian persecution complex despite their overwhelming majority presence).

Democrats piss me off more than Republicans in the same way a Cubs fan is pissed off by the Cubs more than any rival team. Democrats are supposed to be my team. They’re supposed to represent me. They’re supposed to be liberal, but in reality they are impotent moderates.

There are many reasons for this. For one thing, Democrats have blatantly bought into the system of corporate cronyism. They are as corrupt as Republicans in every way. They imperceptibly vary from Republicans in economic policy. Only in the social sphere are Democrats truly distinguished from Republicans, and even this distinction is largely defined by their unwillingness to fight tooth and nail for their side.

Democrats should be organizing gay marriage-ins. They should organize thousands of gay couples to flood city halls day after day demanding marriage licenses and holding up the process for heterosexual couples. They should stand in line for a marriage license, demand one, raise a fuss, and if they get ejected, simply move to the back of the line. They could hold up marriages in major cities across the nation for however long their determination allowed. If heterosexuals are inconvenienced, they may actually take note.

Abortion rights activists need to get pictures of starving children onto placards and march around outside of churches. They need to shout “Baby starver!” at every single person who walks in on Sunday morning. They should picture women in chains, slogans about the state keeping it’s hands off a woman’s body, etc.

Democrats are the party of morons with no good ideas, and I think the reason is they are too worried about being polite. None of the things I mentioned are nice things to do. Innocent people will be upset. The nuptials of some pro-gay couples will be delayed, and undoubtedly some pro-life church-goers will be sneered at. This is hardly collateral damage on the scale of tragedy currently endured by homosexuals, or would be endured by women if abortion was outlawed.

Maybe someday, the Democrats will grow a pair of ovaries. For now, we have to settle for healthcare bills with loopholes allowing health insurers to kill children (because Democrats think they can negotiate with monsters).

No one will give you anything in this life, you have to take it.


  1. I liked this post.

    Especially "Abortion rights activists need to get pictures of starving children onto placards and march around outside of churches. They need to shout “Baby starver!” at every single person who walks in on Sunday morning." Wouldn't that change their perspective. They are worried about all these unborn eggs and spilt seed. They give no thought of all those eggs needing to be fed, clothed and educated. No thought as to the well being for all these potential humans. Growing up in homes unwanted. Growing up in foster care, an orphanage, or in the clutches of Catholic Priests and Nuns.

    I am so disappointed by the Democrats run. They are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans. They really fucked up health care reform.

    They had a chance to do something good for all Americans and sold out instead.

    I also like your they need to grow ovaries. Funny stuff. I think they might have them, but show their true nature. They are greedy corrupt pukes like the rest of politicians in DC.

  2. "I also like your they need to grow ovaries. Funny stuff."

    see right there ginx- outside confirmation that I am funny! :)

    It's totally going to catch on...any day now...

  3. People were saying it way before either of us...

  4. MrModerateDem4/07/2010 5:41 PM

    BTW, AHIP (the insurance companies union if you want to call them) has said that they are no longer seeking loopholes and will cover children with preexisting conditions, this year.

    The Democrats may be perfect that is what us Moderate Progressive/Progressive/Libs got. The conservatives/tea baggers don't get it all with the GOP either (of course during an election campaign they do---like the DNC played us in 2006 and 2008. Seriously, when did Bush or Reagen veto a spending bill? In fact Reagen signed one of the the largest immigration reform bills ever in 1986.

  5. Don't even get me started on Reagan. That guy was the puppet of the people who steered us to ruin. Someone should sue Republicans for false advertising when they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

  6. MrModerateDem4/07/2010 6:52 PM

    As a Moderate leaning progressive, and someone who rarely supports Republicans (mostly because of social issues though), I can say Reagan was not too bad. His spending created many jobs. And I will never forgot he was the last President to treat NASA with respect when it came to budget time.

  7. MrModerateDem4/07/2010 7:01 PM

    Oh and it looks like you live in PA (from profile on sidebar). This November come out for my friend Arlen Specter will you?

  8. Reagan threw people out of hospitals onto the streets, interfered in union negotiations, funded those in the Middle East who we fight today (all those "jobs" were making weapons...), gutted the progressive tax system... I could keep going, if you want.

  9. MrModerateDem4/07/2010 8:03 PM

    True. His policy on health care was too capitalist at best and inhumane at worst.

    The funding of the Mujaheddin might have been necessary at the time. Did not do a lot of research on this topic tbh.

    NC....Well it will depend who wins the Dem primary, Marshall or Cunningham.

  10. Ginx,

    I think you may be operating under the illusion that the Democratic Party actually actively supported the social revolutions of the 1960's. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    While LBJ did get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, and thus (perhaps nobly) sacrificed his party's ability to win the once solidly democratic South for more than a generation, the democratic party was actually quite ambivalent about civil rights. For at least a generation prior to the civil rights movement, African Americans who could vote in the South voted Republican. Why? The Republicans were the reformers. See Progressive Movement, the or Lincoln, Abraham. Even Nixon's administration invented affirmative action and actually proposed a deal on national health care to Teddy Kennedy. Hell, even Bette Ford was for the ERA and when asked by an interviewer what she would do if she found out her teenage daughter was having sex, said she'd make sure she was on the pill.

    In 1960's, the democratic party essentially represented one-party states in the former confederacy and big city political machines. I'm not saying the republican party was noble, and I've never voted for a republican candidate in my life, I'm just saying that believing that the democratic party was ever at the forefront of social change is inaccurate. There's was a huge party realignment in the 1960's and the dems got all of the progressives, and now that they're essentially assured the votes of people like me, there's very little they have to do to appease us other than throw us a few bones every so often like a major compromise on national health care.

  11. There was no reason to carry on the Cold War. Both the US and USSR could have chose to benefit from each other, and the dick-measuring contest only served to flood the world with the arms and grudges that have enabled so much strife even to this day.

    Today, the best nations are those which have adopted elements of both traditional US democracy and Communist social justice. The -ism that brought down Russia was not Communism, but despotism. A government can police the market, but trying to control or be the market will always end in failure.

  12. @anon:

    I'm quite aware of the racist history of the Democratic party and the reforms that took place. This is reflected in my high opinion of Republicans during the first half of the century. I don't know if it was racists who left the Democrats or the addition of the religious right, but Republicans at some point became the party of racists. This is not to say all Republicans are racist, but if you are racist, you're probably Republican.


If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...