Why Do We Call Them 'Democrats'?

American Thinker ^ | June 21, 2008 | Lance Fairchok

[neverdem]

We all knew it even though Democrat spokespersons denied it. Worried that the negative connotations would affect their electability and their eyes glued to the capricious winds of public opinion, they invented new words for the old ideology such as progressivism and communitarianism. Apparently, the camouflage is no longer needed. The masks are off. They now openly call for the nationalization of private business, the establishment of universal entitlements and increased taxation to pay for them. Why worry about socialist labels? The electorate is complacent, prosperity has numbed our senses and the left has worked diligently for many years to sap our national pride and deface our self-image.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

Eight years into the twenty-first century, Mr. Thomas' prediction is coming perilously close to fruition; the presidential elections of 2008 may well validate his faith in "liberalism" and its Trojan horse delivery of Socialism. After decades of slow yet persistent desensitization to Socialism in our schools, in our media and in government policy, Americans are blind to its ramifications for our prosperity, our individual freedoms and our national identity. Political candidates and legislators espouse openly socialist policies without eliciting the slightest outrage or significant comment, so successfully have the philosophies of Marx and Lenin permeated the national psyche. 

House Democrats, loudly shifting blame from the consequences of their energy policies, threaten nationalization of American oil companies. Mimicking Marxist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, their answer to the energy crisis is eliminating free markets.

"Should the people of the United States own refineries?  Maybe so.  Frankly, I think that's a good idea.  Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market..." Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic leadership.

Representative Hinchey is on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Natural Resources Committee, committees with enormous influence on energy matters. He went on as he stood next to House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL):

"So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put out on the market.

"To me, that sounds like a very good idea."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) once considered one of congress's fringe leftists apparently let the Democrat party policy slip during show hearings with oil company executives earlier in the month:

"This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Anticipating the consequences of what they do for political expediency is not a skill the Democrats nurture. Their refusal to support the development of domestic oil reserves, for decades has left us beggars on the world market, susceptible to the whims of theocratic tyrants and Marxist thugs. The record is clear, Republicans voted to develop domestic resources, the Democrats voted against development, by wide margins. Democrat party leaders are now feverishly shifting blame, developing public distracters, claiming their remarks are taken out of context and, as always, counting on the fickle memory of the electorate to kill the issue.

Our Democrat-Socialists invariably support polices that end badly. Bio fuels have removed important food surpluses from markets, raising food prices worldwide. The energy and water required to produce it is far greater to an equal measure of gasoline. This is an example of the solution being worse than the problem. Their anti-Iraq war hysterics have failed; Iraqi democracy moves forward against all odds, a remarkable achievement. The accusations of administration malfeasance, in the war on terror, in diplomacy, in a dozen other areas are proving unsupportable.

Even global warming has turned up a hoax, at best a wild exaggeration more to do with ideology and money than science. Temperatures are dropping, CO2 does not seem to affect global weather and the sun is gone into a natural dormant phase, which means decades of cooler temperatures. Another inconvenient "truth" falls away. Yet new ones are always being born, America's Socialists are ever mutable, shifting and accommodating in the winds of political change. They are clever when inventing new causes and convincing the American people that their record is not their fault.

They never let themselves get pinned down; they never sit idle for the blame to settle.

Our Founding Fathers created a system that understood what best motivates its citizens: a desire to better their lives and the lives of their families. They developed a system that accepts the realties of the human condition, and allows for competing ambitions with checks and balances that are remarkably resilient. It is a system that cultivates enterprise and prosperity, and has been supremely successful. The Socialists want to change it. 

Socialism bleeds the vitality from a nation; it dilutes the national will, and lulls the citizenry into a stupor that makes it ill suited to survival. Existential threats are ignored as social programs and entitlements consume ever larger and larger portions of the national budget. Communism, Socialisms most virulent strain, has been so spectacular a failure it is hard to fathom how anyone could continue to be seduced by its false promises. Yet, we see Marxist autocrats such a Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega idolized with the same adolescent naiveté that made Pol Pot and Fidel Castro palatable to liberal elites in the West. As is always the case, when their inevitable depredations shock and embarrass their western apologists, they quickly disappear from our newspapers and television sets, filtered out by the ideology that erases unpleasant truths by pretending they are not there.

Our willingness to forgo easy comfort and short-term gain for a greater and more lasting prosperity has made us what we are. Most Americans still expect to work for what they have. We take pride in our labors. We expect our fellow citizens to do the same. We are generous with our charity precisely because it is voluntary. We bridle under oppressive government regulation. We know that utopias are a fairytale, and thankfully, for now, a significant number of us can still spot a charlatan.

The Socialist Party of America has arrived, wearing Democrat clothing. Socialist control of the presidency and congress would knock America to its knees as nothing has before. What was inconceivable five years ago becomes a frightening possibility with Obama, Pelosi, Boxer and Reid. The Democrats socialist vision will be a disaster.

If you think gas is expensive now, wait until the socialists in congress run the oil business.

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all." - Richard Weaver, 1962

[MarkL]

If I were to post what I'm thinking right now, I have no doubt that I would be banned... For life.

Mark

[pyrless]

“Note the entire leftist educational emphasis against attaching a “label” on anything. A “label” is an adjective. If appropriate, they are perfectly good descriptive modifyers.”

Right! After all, if the left wants to avoid something, all the more reason to do it. We need to start calling them what they are: socialists. It’ll make more average voters realize what’s going on. If the left wants to complain about us using the socialist label, fine .... let’s debate it. Bring it on!

[ripley]

“all the soldiers in american history that fought and died,or were wounded in battle, will have wasted all their effort and sacrifice if we allow this nation to become what the demonrats want it to become.”

there are many people who feigned illness or incapacity to avoid the draft in the 1960’s. then there were those who went north to avoid it.

now, those very same ones are espousing left-wing causes and pushing for democrat control of the government and now denigrating the efforts of u.s. soldiers in iraq.

it seems that the fifth column was in the city all along
and are now coming out of the closet.

i wonder how all this will end up.

[Wolverine]

[LZ_Bayonet]

From now on I'll refer to them as "Socialists" in some manner, depending the grammar required and the context. The Socialist party needs to be identified correctly. I will do this not only in postings, but in conversation.

Having thought about this issue for a long time and agreeing with the author, I think this is a good time (with their "coming out" quotes) to start.

[CWWren]

Why not just Rats.

This 'party' is comprised of socialists, communists, envirowackjobs, homosexuals and other assorted perverts and haters of the Constituion and of America.

[pyrless]

KISS principle?

[pyrless]

KISS principle?
Sorry, that was too flip of me.

I think the message and effort should be aimed at the uninformed, casual voter. While indeed RATS is more descriptive, it can be a turn-off to some. Better, I think, to use “socialist” which is a well-recognized and negative label to most people in the country.

[webschooner]

Why do we call them Democrats?

... because in polite conversation we avoid such correct but blunt labels as A**holes.

[pyrless]

“Why Do We Call Them ‘Democrats’?”

“Because there’s no printable translation for “@#%@^&!*(@&%!”?”

Big time ROFL. Thanks.

[Wolverine]

SOCIALISTS feeding at the tax trough.

[pyrless]

Eewwww! Gross (or more).

You guys on this site are so entertaining. Makes me wonder how regular comedians can make a living with you all around.

[P H Lewis]

bookmark

[combat_boots]

“If I were to post what I’m thinking right now, I have no doubt that I would be banned... For life.

Mark”

You and me both brother. I have tidied up my profile even here.

But, if Obeymao gains more power, or sends his matrixed clones in his absence, screen names won’t cut it.

As it is, there is a stipulation in the Housing bill that authorizes transmission of all electronic transaction records to some ‘federal’ information gathering data center. If it feels like they’re coming for us, it’s because THEY ARE.

So, do we lay down, make nice, smile at the crap going on or do we fight?

No one is going to get me on my knees and beg. No one.

The war is not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s here. In our hearts and minds. And we are going to have to take a stand, apparently sooner rather than later.

So, you know what? Bring it, Obanazis. Bring it. Tell me I can’t say this or do that, or create my own wealth or take care of my own household. Tell me the United States Constitution needs rewritten and all will be better under your Great Black Massa, the nouveau Great White Father. Tell me I am too ignorant, working-class, uneducated to know. Tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to.........

Now, GO RECORD THESE WORDS IN YOUR TROLLING OF WEB SITE MOVEON-STYLE STORM-TROOP DATA MANIPULATION, you spineless, demonic minions:

OVER MY DEAD BODY.

The war is HERE, and I, an American Patriot, will win, with my brothers in arms.

[do the dhue]

I feel as if five areas of our culture has been marred by socialism and/or lennin’s view of socialism. These segments of our culture are:

One of our Political Parties

Our educational system (higher education included)

Our media

Some Judges on the bench

and Hollywood

Over the past fifty years these parts of our culture have slipped into the quicksand of socialism (in my view). Hollywood has gone down hill fast; and Hollywood is the biggest propaganda machine on the planet. Our media influences the mind of the sheople. If it wasn't for talk radio and FNC, the right would have no voice. Our schools systems are full of progressive thinking people who brainwash our children into believing socialism is a good thing. Judges on the bench create havoc and the people say the systems is broken and we need to change it. The system is not broke, it is the people from within the system that are broke. We fix this problem by removing those who wish to legislate from the bench. And last but not least the demoratic party is the socialist party and a lot of the people who vote demorat have no idea what they are voting for. I also believe that there are individuals in other parties who get bought by interest groups. We call them RINOs and they are no better then a demorat.

That is my assessment of the situation. And may I add that I believe we have the best system in the world, but we have the worst people running it. The thing that needs changed is to remove these thugs from power.

I am interested in hearing what others think about this. Also, if you think there may be other areas of our culture that are effected, please let me know.

Thanks

[do the dhue]

And may I add, I wish to change DC including the removal all the foreign interest group, but I do not trust Barrack Hussein Obama to do the job. I have seen his voting record (what little there is).

[buffyt]

WHY do we call them Democrats? Because it is not polite to call them what they REALLY ARE!!!!!!!!

[Jack Black]

The right to buy AR-15s, AK-47, M1as, Winchester Model 70s, Remington Model 700s, Armalite AR-10s and the ammunition which they are chambered for.

USE YOUR RIGHTS!

(Also restored the right to own gold, which FDR had abrogated by executive order.)

[Theodore R.]

The main reason the word “Democrat” continues to be used is that people think it means “rule” “by” the people. They don’t understand the corruption of the term.

[airborne]

They dropped the "N" and added a "C".

Thereby, DemonRat becomes Democrat!