Government Isnt the Problem the Democratic Party Is

During his first inaugural address in 1981, President Ronald Reagan made the famous declaration when referring to the Democrats reliance on the federal government to solve the ills of the nation stating, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." While I hardly consider myself worthy to disagree with the Gipper, I do believe myself qualified to say what I feel was at the heart of this statement, although phrased as it was for the sake decorum of the moment and the national audience. Nearly all problems related to government as well as the overall decline of American greatness can be attributed to the Democratic Party.

That in itself is a pretty provocative statement, and is absolutely meant to be so. But as we survey the shape of our republic in its present state I challenge anyone of sound mind to dispute the claim that every major problem this nation faces has is at its heart one that Democrats have either created or nurtured to the point of crisis, generally for their own political gain.

The news of the past month have provided us pictures and reports of tens of thousands of Central American illegal immigrants streaming across our border, many of them women and unaccompanied children. These events have created an unprecedented crisis for border control, our immigration services, law enforcement as well as many cities and small towns in our nation. On top of that is the human tragedy of displaced families, loss of life and criminals taking advantage of those who indeed may be illegal immigrants but are also fellow human beings. This very morning the Washington Post and Fox News provided ghastly reports of children and teenagers who have perished making the journey. As Jana Winter of Fox recounted the horrific experiences of illegal immigrants and border patrol alike in her report on the Rio Grande River, "Many don’t make it across the river; multiple sources became emotional when recounting their discoveries of small, lifeless bodies washed up along the riverbank.”

While our proximity to the third-world economies of Central America render a certain level illegal immigration an inevitability, it has been exacerbated by Progressives within the Democratic Party to satisfy both their economic and political goals. Unlike the traditional patterns of immigration in our nations history, including that of the previous wave of Mexican illegal immigrants in the 1970's & 1980's, which was largely driven on economic opportunity and the prospect of jobs, much of the recent wave is prompted on the promise of economic assistance and state-issued welfare. A recent study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that more than half of all immigrants (legal and illegal) from Honduras (54 percent), El Salvador (57 percent) and Guatemala (49 percent) are on at least one form of public welfare assistance.

They have been lured here, willing to risk life and limb and willing to send their own children unaccompanied not on the prospect of finding good paying jobs in a bustling economy, for that no longer exists, but on the promise of government sustenance, on the promise of "free stuff" provided by a Democratic Party whose leader, President Barack Obama stresses the need for compassion as our overriding national principle.

Democrats will speak of their compassion toward illegal immigrants, then thwart their assimilation and relegate them to life of poverty and bureaucratic dependence.

Over the past 50 years, the Democratic Party has shifted its primary branding to present itself as a party of compassion. They no longer stand for any tangible long-term goal, certainly not as champions of American exceptionalism but in reality only for the a solidification of their own power. On nearly every issue, compassion is given as the ultimate selling point. Every logical and rational opposition presented will be attacked on an emotional level as to paint opponents as uncaring and lacking in compassion. This strategy has been utilized by Democrats with much effectiveness to play on the sensitivities of both its predominately liberal voting base as well as the Christian notion of charity with independent and moderate voters. The American people have a long history of being generous, forgiving and a sincere desire to help our fellow-man and the Democratic Party has skillfully tapped into this trait for more than half a century. This would be all well and good if it were not so disingenuous.

For this compassion is merely a mask, a public posturing to hide a more nefarious agenda of emboldening a bureaucratic which is the primary source and protectorate of their power. On the local, state and federal levels, Democrats primary source of funding, recruitment and ground troops come from the various agencies employed to dispense this state-run form of "compassion." A compassion whose goal is not the betterment of the individual and as a long-term mechanism for self-determination, but rather a vehicle utilized to perpetuate an existence of indigence so that the bureaucracy may maintain and in fact increase its reason for being.

When one's power and employment is dependent on the misery of others to sustain itself, it is ludicrous to believe the fable that those vested in that system would wish to see it destroyed. As is the case with any living creature or entity, once a bureaucracy is created natural law will dictate that it will strive to maintain itself and grow. In order for any private business or public agency to grow, it requires an increase in its customer base. While private establishments must adhere to the rules and trends of the marketplace to achieve this, a state bureaucracy is under no such constraints. It has the ability to create "customers" by manipulating the conditions within its marketplace, in the case the body politic. Progressives within the Democratic Party figured out long ago that by perpetuating the factors that cause poverty, they can assure an ever-growing stream of indigent individuals in need of their form of "compassion."

This is precisely why various government-run welfare programs have been crafted in the manner they have. Among the native population, the most expeditious way to insure generational poverty is to breakdown the stability of families and produce more single-parent households. That for decades welfare recipients must askew employment and marriage in order to continue receiving benefits was done not by accident. Every demographic metric available to us suggests that children born to single mothers have a higher likelihood of child poverty, lower educational achievement, higher rates of incarceration and ultimately lower incomes as adults and more dependence on state assistance. They also run a higher risk of themselves growing up to be single mothers or fathers who shirk parental responsibility. If one can emasculate the father and seduce the mother into welfare dependency, one can control the child forever.

In frighteningly Orwellian fashion, Democratic Party "compassion" is not a means but an end. The goals of the welfare state, as administered by Progressives is not a mechanism designed to help individuals get through a particularly difficult period of time, but an agent for continued political power, a power that depends on the misery of the human condition. In the hands of Progressive Democrats, the "social safety net" has become a spider-web in which the individual finds difficult to escape upon becoming accustomed to its benign misery. For Democrats, power is not a means to fight social ills and better the lives of human beings, but rather provides them the ability to perpetuate the individuals wretchedness to insure the need of the bureaucracy.

The importance of these Central American illegal immigrants to the Democratic Party cannot be understated. They recognize their entire future depends on this "emerging market" of customers. Fifty years following the "Great Society" programs of President Lyndon B Johnson and his Progressive henchmen is beginning to unravel before them. Although on its surface it is hard to recognize this, but they better than conservatives see the dangers to liberal-progressive political hegemony among their primary "customer base." While they continue to maintain dominance of the black American vote, a startling data point came out of the 2012 elections which has Democrat leaders justifiably concerned. In 2008 94 percent of young black males 18-29 voted for Barack Obama compared to only 80 percent who did so in 2012. Having been the primary victims of liberal-progressive social engineering, young black men are beginning to recognize the hollowness of Democratic Party rhetoric and the emasculating nature of their policies. Many of these young men grew up fatherless and as wards of the welfare state and as such got a first hand view of its destructive nature. As unbelievable as it may see, together with white independent males of the same age group, they represent the fastest growing constituencies of the Republican Party.

As a result of liberal-progressive compassion, 41% of all American children, and 72% of black children, grow up fatherless.

While Democrats have generally enjoyed a political advantage over Republicans among Hispanic voters, they recognize this vote has not been as monolithic as they would like. Both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush owed their Presidency in part to their appeal to Hispanic voters. Democrats lament that Hispanic voters have acted far more independently in their voting decisions than African-American voters. What Democrat strategists noticed, however, was that in the poorest and primarily Spanish-speaking precincts of the cities, the Democrat vote totals reached as high as the 90% figures obtained from black Americans. Upwardly mobile Hispanics were found to be just as likely to consider and vote for Republican candidates as white voters and much less likely to be dependent on state aid to meet their daily needs.

Thus in response to these two factors, Democrats have found turned south for their future and continuance of their power. Signals have been sent out long ago that America will not turn away unaccompanied children and will not deport those from non-landlocked nations. And by encouraging the mass migration of women and children, Progressive forces within the Democratic Party benefit from the double bonus of being able to play on the compassion angle as well as meeting the specific criteria of their "customer" needs. After all, they will argue, these are women with young children to care for and we certainly can't expect them to leave these children without guardianship in a strange land. So just as they are making the argument it would be lacking compassion to turn them away, it would be equally so not to provide them benefits to put food on the table.

Even the most ardent conservative Republican will acknowledge the need for good and stable government on local, state and federal levels. There have been numerous cases where America has utilized the mechanism of government to protect the citizenry, insure liberty and better the lives of the people. But the continuance of liberty and a strong America depends on a respect for the constraints the Constitution places on federal government and the limits of its ability to solve our nations ills. Governments, like corporations and unions are not evil into themselves but a reflection of the men and women who administer their direction. With all due respect and deference to Ronald Reagan, a President who truly understood its proper role, restraints and limits, government isn't the problem, the Democratic Party is.

I have never been big on political parties at all and many of the founders also expressed that sentiment.

I apologize for calling your Karl Rove, that was a low blow!

Indeed, our Founders had a strong antipathy for political parties. It seems once again, as most always, our Founders were correct.

Never before (or since) in world History had such a collection of brilliant and wise men gathered to create a blueprint of Liberty and limited government.

If alive today our Founders would think most in government (except for a very few in Congress) today are below pond scum and only worthy of contempt.

Are you purposefully ignoring the responsibility that the GOP-E has in this mess?

No, but the GOPe is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dumb-as-crap partei. They never do anything to oppose them in any meaningful way even when they have the opportunity. It wouldn't surprise me if money actually, literally, changed hands.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.