I think many Americans ask themselves the question, “What went wrong with the Democratic and Republican Parties?” Most people can discern little difference between the two, and in my opinion neither party represent the majority of people any longer. I strongly suspect that in most elections the people are voting for the lesser of two evils than they are voting with any form of commitment for a specific party or candidate.
What Went Wrong With the Democratic Party?
When I grew up, I can vividly recall that the Democratic Party represented the little people. They were the only force to counterbalance the big money and power behind the Republican Party, which could care less about worker’s sharing in the wealth of the country, or what catastrophe was laid on the environment. Corporations were dumping toxic chemicals in our water supplies to increase profits, while workers were scrimping along on a few bucks in pay while fortunes were being made by Daddy Warbucks.
The Democrats were supposed to be the “reasonable” party and defenders of the working class. There seems to be universal agreement between my cohorts and myself that a “psycho” minority has taken control of this party. The fundamental issues that were the cornerstone of the party’s platform for many years have taken a back seat to many challenges to the religious and moral foundations of the country. In the 2004 election, strong religious rights grassroots movements placed an issue defining the term marriage on the ballot in 11 states because of court rulings that sanctioned gay marriage in liberal states like Massachusetts. In all 11 states, voters overwhelmingly and clearly demonstrated that marriage is between a man and a woman. So how do the Democrats and the liberals within their ranks respond to this classic definition? They scream that the voters in these states are homophobic. This could not be farther from the truth. I know that voters are sick and tired of being bashed with some label every time the people reject the liberal agenda. Voters in America have generally been raised with Judeo-Christian values and defer to the Bible for their moral teachings. According to most evangelists, the Bible clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman as well as it denounces homosexuality. In addition, it doesn’t take great insight for voters to recognize that the anatomy of a man and woman are designed for procreation – not so with a man-man or woman-woman relationship. Americans, however, have come a long way in recognizing people that don’t fit into the conventional definition of “normal.” I believe that most Americans readily accept or “tolerate” committed gay relationships, but they are not willing to push the envelope and accept gay marriage.
To millions of Americans, stating that you are a Democrat often means you are an atheist, although in fact many Democrats are very religious people who claim the Bible forms the basis for their “liberal” beliefs. It is difficult to comprehend their stand on issues like homosexuality and partial-birth abortions when viewed in that context. Hispanics, the fastest growing ethnic group in America, are abandoning the party in droves. Many Hispanics, who are normally raised in the traditions of the Catholic Church, have great difficulty with the party’s stance on these issues.
Democrats envision themselves as the only intellectuals and “true thinkers” within our society. Heaven forbid, should you disagree with any of the many issues that they ram down our throats, you will be called every name in the book including “racist, homophobe, redneck, Neanderthal and Christian zealot.” Whenever the people reject another of their harebrain and often-dangerous ideas, the Democrats scream “tolerance.” Contrary to their claims, there is no tolerance in the Democratic Party. Either you agree with them, or you are classified as an uneducated and close-minded buffoon.
In examining the corruption of the Constitution by activist judges, we can ask who is promulgating this illegal and immoral activity? The blame lies with the Democrats and not the Republicans who are bypassing the people to achieve their desired results whether the reason is to fund education or for political treachery. In their minds, they claim that by bypassing democratic processes it will “benefit the people” so obviously the means justifies the ends. History teaches us that jurists within Nazi Germany often bypassed the legal niceties, and look what happened to that fascist society.
Separation of Church and State
Liberals want us to buy into the doctrine that the Constitution makes the “separation of church and state an absolute.” This is woefully wrong. There is no mention whatsoever of this in the Constitution. The only reference to religion in the Constitution will be found in the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Read the words carefully, “…law respecting an establishment of religion.” It does not say “an organization of religion” or “a particular religious theology.” The intent of this statement is that the government will not define a state religion as was done in England by defining the Church of England as the official state religion. I am not aware of any Supreme Court decisions that have stated that the Catholic Church or the Mormons are the only true faith. In many filings with the courts, the ACLU and other secular organizations have demanded that any phrase that invokes God or has the slightest hint of any religious trappings be removed from legal documents, courthouses and even statues. Let us not forget that Christian principles and the Ten Commandments form the basis for this government. You will even find a form of the word “God” in the Declaration of Independence. Recognizing the existence of God, any god or Supreme Being, does not mean that a law has been created “respecting an establishment of religion.” Don’t be mislead by my arguments. I am not advocating a strong bond between the government and the religious right – far from it. I am simply pointing out that a historical precedent exists that formed the foundations of this society and government that should not be discarded by revisionists.
Even Thomas Jefferson, who was far from a Bible Thumper, offered the following in a letter to John Adams:
”In the very words only of Jesus….There will be found.…the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”
Under the banner of “separation of church and state,” liberal elements and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have attacked just about every symbol that has been in place for well over 200 years, including the demand that “In God We Trust” be removed from any official seals, documents and even our currency. The real purpose is to institute the secular policies they desire under the guise of separation of church and state.
I honestly believe that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the leftist visionaries and “deep thinkers,” although there are many good people in the party who have been stomped into oblivion and have little voice in the primary party platform. I suspect that most Democrats are still concerned with the fundamental issues of terrorism, the environment and family-related issues, but the powerful but misguided liberal branch of the party drowns their voice out. One of the most frightening examples of this situation is the idea of secular humanism, wherein everything is neutral, which forms the core of many of their decisions. Secularism is the basis by which all of the cherished values in this country are being attacked including religion, marriage and gay rights. So what does secularism mean? From a theological standpoint, Secular Humanists are atheists. Let’s examine the words that are available on the Secular Humanism web site (www.secularhumanism.org/):
“The Council for Secular Humanism is North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.”
According to the Council, “Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.”
“In particular, it tackles issues where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice in sexual relationship, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. The Council also promotes critical thinking about supernatural and paranormal claims.”
At first glance, secular humanism may have a degree of appeal as far as its “puritanical” approach to a better way of life, but if you carefully analyze this philosophy, it’s really nothing more than a rehashing of the principles of godless communism, a classic political philosophy that has been proven unworkable time and time again. I’m curious. Under secularism, where do the advocates acquire their moral values and pass same onto their children? Under Judeo-Christian philosophy, people have the Ten Commandments and the Bible or the Torah to form their spiritual and moral values. Even under Islam, Muslims have the Koran. Under secularism, are these commandments simply replaced with, “…take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live?” Isn’t that a fairly close definition of anarchy? How do secularists differentiate between right and wrong? But better yet, if many of the liberal Democrats identify with secularism and they believe that they should “…take responsibility for our own lives,” then how can they support the nanny state of big government? It seems a strange marriage between power hungry big government advocates and secular humanists in the Democratic Party. It’s a contradiction in terms.
If you examine the Democrats’ position on almost every major issue, their answer is to raise taxes to solve any problem - heavy taxation of the proletariat - one of the primary tenets of communism. Democrats are perceived as fiscally irresponsible by millions of Americans. I can NEVER recall hearing a Democrat suggest that a problem may be solved by utilization of the free enterprise marketplace, as in the example of Social Security reform, or maybe the problem is often not as great as their agenda propagandized. Their standard canned answer is to raise taxes whenever some new idea must be implemented. It seems to me that Democrats could care less what a new law may cost when they’ve made up their minds that the people must have a particular service. In my opinion, Democrats conveniently forget that our standard of living as the most powerful nation on the planet has been achieved by capitalism, with all of its ugly byproducts and not by some utopian theory that will never work in a truly diversified culture like America.
If you review the Democratic Party platform in the 1960s when John Fitzgerald Kennedy was president, the difference between that fundamental platform and today’s platform is the difference between night and day. If JFK were alive today, he would likely vote Republican.
Liberal Democrats Issues Are Not American’s Issues
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the leftist/liberal elite of Hollywood has taken up the cause, too. Time and time again, some Hollywood actor rants and raves about an issue about which they are grossly misinformed and then proceed to make an ass out of himself or herself. Michael Moore, who is one of this motley crew, claims to make documentaries, but he is nothing more than a “Bush hater,” propagandist and charlatan.
In a nutshell, what it boils down to in simple terms is that Americans do not get very excited about what the liberals consider the issues facing the American people. I can stick out my neck and say without any doubt that the issues Americans are concerned about are war, terrorism, taxes, the environment and the economy. The average American has his or her own primary issues and could care less about what some insignificant portion of the populace worries about in the form of “off-the-wall” theories about secular humanism including gay marriage. Although a few of the issues raised by these people may be important to some voters, they are not foremost in the minds of people who are just trying to survive and raise their children. I can just hear the liberals snickering now about the Neanderthal who just wrote those words. Yes, if because I don’t have hundreds of hours to sit in an ivory tower and dream up more human engineering theories that bear little importance on the day-to-day fundamental struggles of the average American, then you are correct - I am a Neanderthal.
I can say without hesitation that the Democratic Party has outlived its usefulness to the American people.
What Went Wrong With the Republican Party?
When I grew up in a lower middle-class household in the 1950s and 1960s, I was taught that Republicans and big money controlled the country, and there was little that we could do to change that posture.
I was raised in a blue-collar world where the only salvation was the Democratic Party. As I evolved as a human being and I started to make my mark in the world, I began to question many of the values espoused by the Democratic Party. On one hand, I applauded the issues they raised about the environment, fair labor practices and rights of the American workers when they fought against powerful corporations and big money. But on the other hand, I found their passion for often unnecessary and counterproductive regulations and constantly raising taxes to be anathema to my values. I was fed up watching my taxes increase year after year to support welfare and numerous other badly implemented social theories. I could not understand why at least some disadvantaged people didn’t climb out of the ghetto and with perhaps some minimum help from the government get an education and work for a living just like I have done all of my life.
The Republican Party started looking better and better to me, as I was now a small businessman and for over 20 years I watched as Big Brother constantly invoked more rules, regulations and taxes on me that stifled my ability to conduct business. The Republican Party seemed to reflect my own values of individual freedom, individual responsibility and economic opportunity. The Republican Party just wanted ALL people to make money. They claimed they supported small government and lower taxes. Yes, they ignored many critical issues, too, but weighing my needs, perhaps selfishly, I felt long-term I was better off with the Republicans, if for no other reason I was terrified of Big Brother and the waste of my hard-earned money. After working as a defense contractor and my stint in the Army, I fully recognized that big government, which had failed time and time again in so many societies, only portends disaster for this country.
I agreed with the Republicans desire to support a large defense effort, but I witnessed first hand the tremendous waste of tax dollars thrown at the defense contractors. I also watched as much legislation was passed that definitely gave huge tax breaks to American corporations at the expense of the American people. Was this the price I had to pay to support my life style? In essence, would I need to shut my mouth and become a hypocrite and vote for the lesser of two evils? Over the last 20 years, I have watched the Republicans change their party platform to a more centrist philosophy in an attempt to capture the votes of many borderline Democrats. Now the Republicans were starting to sound like the Democrats – tax and spend! Republicans were now supporting many social programs in an effort to attract a broader base of voters – programs with which I vehemently disagreed that lead us down the road to socialism. Although the core Republican strength has been the religious right, the party has tempered its platform to accept positions that go against the very fiber of the party, on issues such as expanded social programs, violations of our civil rights and partial-birth abortions. If the party believes in individual responsibility then the party should take no position on matters that should be left to the woman who has to make that decision. It’s either none of the Federal government’s business or an issue to be decided at the local or state level. Whether some people like it or not, the country is comprised of many diverse cultures and religious factions. Should bureaucrats in Washington be deciding predominately religious issues and passing laws that may affect Mormons in Utah, Quakers in Pennsylvania and Catholics in Massachusetts? I think not. These are state or local issues or non-issues that the Federal government has no business legislating.
Republican Party – the War Party
In response to the terrorist’s attacks of September 11th, we invaded Afghanistan after giving the ruling clique, the Taliban, 48 hours to surrender Osama Bin Laden. When the deadline passed, we sent in our troops to destroy the Taliban, a backward Muslim sect, in order to find and liquidate our archenemy. I believe the vast majority of Americans, including myself, supported that effort. But when we invaded Iraq, I drew the line. There was no real evidence to support weapons of mass destruction or links to Al-Qaeda. Even if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, how would he deliver them against us? It was well documented that the Scud missiles he possessed had a maximum range of 200 miles; just enough to reach Israel but of no possible direct consequence to the United States. So, in fact, we were really attacking Iraq to protect the Israelis and our oil interests using our troops as cannon fodder.
I vehemently screamed, “It will be another Vietnam” to anyone who would listen. The Republicans were now making the same mistakes that the Democrats made in the Vietnam War. Who are these politicians who would put our men and women in harm’s way to satisfy their concept of forcibly imposing democracy on another country, or in reality satisfying their lust for power? What were George Bush and the Republicans doing to our country? Didn’t they understand that we were making the same horrendous mistakes we made in that Asian jungle? When I researched the political period in Southeast Asia between 1949 and 1975 after I had been discharged from the Army, I was horrified to discover the level of ignorance imparted by the people in power. They never understood that Ho Chi Minh may have been a communist but he was fundamentally an ardent nationalist whose primary goal was to unify Vietnam. After World War II he approached the United States and asked for our help to prevent the French from re-establishing their colonial empire in French Indo-China. What did we do? Out of fear of Russia and the communist ideology, we gave the French our outdated weapons and money to move back into Indo-China, on the pretext that we needed the French to thwart communist expansion. The oft-used phrase, “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” was the governing principle we used during the Cold War to justify our foreign policy, going so far as pledging support for ruthless dictators. As evidence of the ignorance of our elected representatives, after fighting the Vietnam War for many years, President Lyndon Baines Johnson thought he could use his southern Democratic bartering skills with Ho Chi Minh by offering him up to $10 billion to rebuild North Vietnam if he would stop the war. He and his cabinet never understood the problem. The term “clueless” immediately comes to mind.
Will these overeducated idiots never learn? I emphatically disagree with the prevailing attitude amongst the power brokers that we are the world’s policemen. At last count, we had troops stationed in 135 countries out of 192 countries on the planet. Is this not the classic dictionary definition of “Imperialism?” Most of the civilized world is diametrically opposed to our foreign policy. Even if two of these countries are Germany and France, whom we rescued over 50 years ago, their reasons for opposing our invasion and occupation of Iraq are most likely insane by our standards, but the bottom line is they are correct in opposing our Iraqi foreign policy. A far more dangerous foe is North Korea, which possesses intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be modified to hit the west coast of the United States. Equally important, they possess nuclear capability as well. So who’s the more dangerous foe, Iraq or North Korea? Apparently Iraq wins hands down, because it has so much oil. I therefore concluded that this is an economic war and has little to do with terrorism or democracy. It’s all subterfuge. I predicted that if nothing else our invasion would create one million Muslim suicide bombers throughout the world, totally exacerbating the problem. My prediction is now coming true with the daily murder of 25, 50 or even 100 civilians, all in the name of Allah.
The party line we are fed is that we will introduce the first democracy into the Arab world and it will set in motion a “domino” effect in the region. Unbelievably, some idiot has come up with another Domino Theory except this time it’s to our benefit with the Arabs and not to fight the communists. In the future, Iraqis will have the opportunity to vote for their representatives, which, in theory, will have the citizens jumping for joy. Well, I don’t buy the propaganda. If you are old enough you may remember the term “Vietnamization, “ which proved to be a dismal failure. As soon as we turn over control and minimize our presence in the war zone, the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites will be at each other’s throats in a matter of days. Arabs don’t need democracy as they have their own form of government. It’s called the Koran. And don’t forget that the Iranians, with their fundamentalist Islamic government, are constantly stirring the pot in the background, too. The Iranians will provide billions of dollars to ensure that a fundamentalist government takes power as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Lately, George Bush and his warlords have been rattling the saber at Iran, too. Fortunately, we don’t have enough troops to occupy that country, so maybe that will slow down the bloodletting campaign.
From many articles I have read, many Muslims regard our “War on Terrorism” as a “War on Islam.” The United States supports hated authoritarian Arab regimes, exemplified by the Saudi Arabian regime, as allies in the war against terrorism, further deepening the divide. The last thing that most Muslims want is to be liberated by the American military machine. Muslims do not hate the freedoms Americans enjoy, but they do hate our foreign policy. As a result of our invasion of Iraq and our perceived support of Israel against the Palestinians, many Muslims see the jihadists as freedom fighters with a following of millions, whereas before they were just a cancerous tumor of Islam. We have given these mutants credibility in the Arab world.
Not only have we wasted well over $400 billion to-date, with more to come, we have over 3,000 dead and 25,000 maimed plus coalition losses, too. If you still think this is a worthwhile venture, take a day and visit a military hospital such as Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and count the faceless, legless and armless soldiers. When I was an outpatient at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Denver, Colorado in 1969, there were thousands of bludgeoned soldiers crammed into every room, hallway and broom closet. It was a horrifying sight. Visiting a modern-day military hospital will cause you to hopefully re-evaluate our foreign policy.
Republicans love war. It helps them to build up the Defense Department and lets them squander billions and billions of dollars on their favorite pets, the defense contractors. I have concluded over my lifetime that the people in government, in whom we have placed our faith, are just not very smart. But they are smart enough to make sure none of their sons or daughters winds up as a battlefield casualty. Their children are well schooled and need not enlist in the Army or Marines to gather the all-important monies to pay for a college education. Only the poor people need to go that route.
Christian Zealots Doing Irreparable Harm
On the opposite side of the coin from liberal Democrats, and obviously in response to many of the liberal concepts that pound on the concept of “Separation of church and state,” the Christian right faction of the Republican Party is flexing their muscles by trying to force through federal laws that reflect their values in direct violation of the Constitution.
No longer can we count on the Republicans to stop the suffocating hammer of the massive federal bureaucracy. The administration is exerting pressure on federal courts to block implementation of state initiatives on medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon. Regardless of your position on gay marriage, President Bush and conservatives are trying to ram through a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act establishes national education testing standards and makes every local school district accountable to federal bureaucrats in Washington. It is very easy for all of us to demand standards that apply to all states to assure uniform education for our children but in reality we are ceding far too much power to the federal government. It removes many of the innovative features of states ability to control the local education process and removes the competition and innovation that is essential to continually upgrade our teaching methodologies because now it’s left in the hand of a few bureaucrats who owe their allegiance to the administration in power. In a similar manner, President Bush's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" transfers the prosecution of gun crimes from states to the federal government. The intervention of President Bush and Congress in the case of Terry Schiavo is the perfect example of illegal federal involvement in a purely local or state’s rights issue. We need not worry about beating back liberal Democrats continual efforts to create the great totalitarian society. The Republicans are doing the job for them. This continual erosion of state’s and individual rights must cease. Can anyone realistically state what the fundamental difference is between a Democrat and a Republican?
I can say without hesitation that the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness to the American people.
So Where Could I Turn?
At this point in my life, I was fed up with both parties. So where could I turn? Well I came up with a simple game plan to return the government to the people. One of the tenets of my political philosophy is to never again vote for a Democrat or Republican. Support independent candidates. Remember that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to elect, for one term, the “butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker.” It’s time to revisit that thinking.