Brown Nose Democrats

The American Thinker ^ | August 03, 2009 | Bruce Walker

[Scanian]

During the 1980s, when conservative Democrats from the South and West united with Republicans in the House of Representatives to form a coalition adequate to pass most of President Reagan's agenda, the term "Blue Dog Democrats" was applied to these congressmen. There were a few liberal Republicans from the North, called "Gypsy Moths," who sometimes sided with the majority Democrats against Reagan, but this was a much smaller group.

A majority of the members of the House of Representatives today come from congressional districts which are conservative. This is in perfect accord with the latest Battleground Poll data, which seems to be totally ignored by the vast majority of Americans, including a distressing number of conservatives. Here are the percentages of Americans who, out of the six different and mutually exclusive ideological categories that respondents were given to describe their own ideology, described themselves in the July 16 - July 23 Battleground Poll:

"Very Conservative - 19%"

"Somewhat Conservative" - 40%

"Moderate" - 4%

"Somewhat Liberal" - 26%

"Very Liberal" - 10%

"Unsure/Refused" - 2%

The remarkable characteristic of these results is how consistent the percentages have been over the last decade of Battleground Polling data: In poll after poll for more than a decade the numbers have been very close to the same. In every single Battleground Poll, conservatives are a strong majority even when all the other groups - moderates, unsure/refused, somewhat liberal, and very liberal - are added together.

[AzaleaCity5691]

And we wouldn’t have this problem today is our party hadn’t strayed from the values of Goldwater over the last 8 years.

[monocle]

What people think they are and how they act are two wholly different things. Also, if religion is very important to one he or she may classify themselves as conservative while on economic issues or the size of government they are liberal to very liberal. Depending upon which of the categories of religion, social issues, economics or size of government one considers the most important he or she may classify themselves as conservatives but at the voting polls they may be swayed by extraneous matters such as charisma.

[bondjamesbond]

Too bad for the Republicans they cannot plausibly call themselves a conservative party anymore. All that competing with the Democrats to buy off the mushy middle has left them with nothing to sell.

[bondjamesbond]

What people think they are and how they act are two wholly different things. Also, if religion is very important to one he or she may classify themselves as conservative while on economic issues or the size of government they are liberal to very liberal.

We need to do a better job of making the connection between Judeo/Christian morality and the virtues of limited government and self-reliance.

The most important point we must make is that TAXATION IS NOT CHARITY. A lot of people feel that compassion and charity demand that they support liberal taxing and spending programs in order to support the less fortunate of society. We must explain to these people that voting for Democrats does not in any way discharge their responsibility to be charitable, and that government largesse hurts the poor far more than it helps them, by distorting the economy and supressing economic prosperity.

These people must also be made to understand that money raised from involuntary taxation can never be considered charity because the person who provided the money did not do so as a free-will offering. It is like thief stealing money from a rich man and giving it to a beggar. The thief is not noble, because his is a thief. And the rich man has not noble, because he has not done anything to help his fellow man. Furthermore, the rich man would now be inclined to keep his remaining money for himself, and thus his charitable inclinations are suppressed.

The more people understand that Big Government programs are destructive to the concept of Charity, which must be freely offered, the better conservatives will do.

[Always Right]

.From now on we need to refer to the MSM as 'the Brown Shirts'.

.

[monocle]

These people must also be made to understand that money raised from involuntary taxation can never be considered charity because the person who provided the money did not do so as a free-will offering. It is like thief stealing money from a rich man and giving it to a beggar. The thief is not noble, because his is a thief. And the rich man has not noble, because he has not done anything to help his fellow man. Furthermore, the rich man would now be inclined to keep his remaining money for himself, and thus his charitable inclinations are suppressed.

This encapsulates my point very nicely. When one tries to combine two distinct tenets, one or both tenets must be compromised. From an economic point of view if a wealthy individual has more wealth he can do good two ways - make a charitable contribution or invest(in economis savings = investment) to provide jobs. Which of these choices benefit man the most. This is the parable of giving a man a fish to eat or teach him to fish so he can feed himself and his family. Investing may not be charitable in the religous sense but in the economic sense it does far more good.

[MrB]

2 Cor 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

[bondjamesbond]

Thank you for that. I really should know my Bible better than I do. One thing I can count on at FR is knowledgable friends willing to guide.

[MrB]

BibleGateway.com + Google site search ability = appearance of huge biblical knowledge.

I don’t consider it cheating, however, because it gets me used to finding, AND READING, relevant verses.