Democracy Reform

Sir Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. He is right. Its the best form of government but it also has its flaws. I think that its flaws endanger democracy and needs to be fixed. This blog is for like minded people who want to see democracy improved. I invite people to sumbit essays. I will publish even those I do not agree with so long as I find them interesting.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Why Left Wing Parties want things that are bad for the country.

Dennis Prager in his latest column at wrote that Democrats want things that are bad for America. He gave a long check-list:

(1)The first fault-line to exploit is the economic divide. By playing up resentment and envy, votrepreneurs (politicians) always call for a transfer of wealth from the more capable, frugal and diligent to those less so. This is a flaw in democracy as I pointed out in "Democracy needs a Reformation."

Prager wrote:

"The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected. "

This will inevitably result in a welfare state with its high taxes, high unemplyment and sluggish growth rate. Remember, its all about perception. No matter, how good the economy is, its the perception that counts. So it is in the Democrats interests to project a feeling that you are not getting what you are entitled to.

2)Racial tensions between black and white. Votrepreneurs have to champion (or at least pretend to champion) one racial group or the other. Thus it pays to portray blacks as the perpetual victims of racial discrimination even though there is very little discrimination nowadays. Prager wrote:

"If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. "

If racism is still a problem, Oprah Winfrey won't be so wealthy today. Nobody can accuse you of racism for switching channels. Instead of helping the blacks examine themselves to see what they may be doing wrong, they always blame others for their problems. But that is the nature of democracy. It is not in the interest of Democrats to solve this problem. As long as blacks feel victimized, the Democrats have a willing bloc of voters.

2)The Democrats oppose making English the official language because they want to court the Hispanic vote. But they also know that when Hispanics assimilate, it would vote more for the Republicans, according to Prager. But having a divided nation is bad for America. Of course, the Democrats don't care.

Prager wrote:

"If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education -- it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation -- and oppose making English America's official language. "

So instead of helping Hispanics assimilate and hence begin the climb up the economic ladder like so many early waves of immigrants, the Democrats want another aggrieved minority race that vote Democrat.

3)As I said in my earlier article, Prager also pointed out that the Democrats will benefit if the US loses the war in Iraq. So even before the "surge" in US troops was complete, the Democrats were eagerly declaring failure.

4)Prager on marriage:

"If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

Perhaps that is why the Democrats are eagerly supporting homosexual marriages and welfare payments to single unmarried women. In so doing, they are undermining traditional marriages. The more unmarried women on welfare, the more votes for the Democrats. Homosexuals do not generally have children. This will have an adverse impact on the Social Security program.

Are these trends that result from the Democrat's program good for America?

Is it good for America that its Hispanics do not assimilate and you end up with a divided nation?

Is it good for America to have a welfare state which results in high unemployment and dependency?

Is it good for America to lose the war in Iraq to radical Islamists?

Is it good for America to have more single parent families resulting in more troubled poorly educated children?

I think the answer to all these questions is a 'no'. Denis Prager rightly pointed out that the things Democrats want are usually bad for the country. But he did not explain why.

The short answer is that they want to win the elections. Democracies do not give rise to long term planning because the votrepreneurs won't be in office when the problems come home to roost. But the long answer is that in any society, there are bound to be winners and losers. So in a two party democracy like America, one party (Republicans) will cater to the winners and the other (Democrats) to the losers.

By winners, I don't necessarily mean rich people. My defination of winners are people who have the right attitudes and values that make success likely. Some rich people are losers and some poor people are winners. I know of people born with silver spoons but because of poor work ethics ended up failures. On the other hand there are also people born poor but became successful later on. Of course, people who are diligent, frugal and keep stable marriages are more likely to be better off financially.

Therefore, the Republicans cater to the winners by promising tax cuts so that they can keep more of their winnings. The Democrats usually come up with income dstributive programs to take money from society's winners to give to the losers. This leads to welfare dependency and is detrimental to work ethics. By subsidizing losers, you end up creating more of them which is bad for the country. By subsidizing unmarried mothers, for instance, you end up with more of them because irresponsible fathers know that their children won't starve. Its the responsible taxpayer who will foot the bill.

The Democrats are the Party for Losers. (This is generally true of left-wing parties throughout the world.) So their policies are catered to the losers of society. What this means is that they must come up with policies to please their clients (ie their voters).

Thus they end up with policies that subsidize their voters and hence preserve the wrong behaviors and attitudes that cause them to be losers in the first place. Correcting the wrong attitudes and behaviors is simply not on the agenda. They can't tell them that their failure is largely their own fault because nobody likes to hear harsh truths. Instead they have to tell them its the fault of somebody else and they are entitiled to a share of the pie without having to make sacrifices.

For example, the Democrats offer to fight for bilingual education even though It is difficult for an average person to master two languages well. Lack of proficiency in English will be detrimental to job prospects and assimilation. Remaining poor and disgruntled would keep them losers and they will continue to vote for the Party for Losers. A parallel in Europe is that the left-wing parties are the ones that fight for more Muslim immigration.

The Left & Islam yesterday: Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini
(Hitler was a leftist)

The Left and Islam today: Red Ken & Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi

It should also be kept in mind that the Republican votrepreneurs are no better in their self interests. They too are chiefly concerned about keeping their jobs and not about the long term welfare of their country.

If their policies make better sense, its because of the clients (voters) they cater to. Their clients are the winners of American society - those whose attitudes and values benefit themselves and their country. Coming up with policies that pleases them, they effectively preserve and promote the types of attitudes and behaviors that made them successful and thus is good for the country in general. This is true in general of other Parties for Winners throughout the world.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home