Parties, Factions, and Identity Politica

A number of years ago William F. Buckley wrote an editorial on the accumulation and ascendancy of minority groups within our society. The point of this essay was to illustrate that the Democrats/Progressives were creating groups within this nation that would become the very core of their power base for elections. Buckley pronounced that the only problem with this political strategy is that even if you put all the various groups together, feminist, abortionists, blacks, gays and Hispanics, you still did not come up to much more the 49%. Thus the Democrat/Progressive party had not put together a majority of voters needed to win an elections.

What they did put together was Identity Politics. With this policy, the Progressives divided us along racial, sexual, and religious lines. They talked about the need for "diversity" and how it was good for our country. Assimilation of new citizens disappeared from the policies of our nation while the new program of Identity Politics goes on and on becoming more successful everyday

Identity politics has allowed the Progressives to create victims. Blacks, gays, women, are all victims and legislation needs to be passed both to protect them and to give them an advantage over those of us who are not victims or should I say not yet victims. In creating these protected groups, the Progressives expand their voter base because in helping these poor folks they make them loyal to the Progressive agenda and they make the Progressives the Caring Party.

It is easy to be a member of the caring partybecause that is all you do, you care and legislate e use of other peoples' money to finance your charity.You believe in giving people a fish not in doing the necessary work to teach them how to fish. Putting it another way it is known as the re-distribution of wealth, the goal of the Progressives and the Obama administration

Taking their cue from Woodrow Wilson, the Progressives believe that people and therefore government evolve. There is, for example, no such thing as fixed law or rights as outlined in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thus citizens no longer have their unalienable rights such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You no longer have the right to own the property where you live or anywhere else. It is easy to see how those involved in Obama's health care program can take you off life support when you have no unalienable right to life despite the fact that you have a right to health care in this brave, new world. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are simply moldy old documents that no longer matter since man has now evolved to the point where these documents are "living documents" and must be brought up to date where the modern man believes that the best thing to happen is to put the government and its bureaucracy in charge of all decisions.

There is only one problem with this theory, it is not true. First and foremost in order to swallow this you must believe, among other things, that the human nature changes. It doesn't do that. One of the concerns of our Framers was that human nature does not change. Because human nature does not change, ergo improve with the evolving of time, government must be structured to take that into account. In "Federalist 6. Publius criticizes those who fail to see the permanent dangers of human nature by saying that they are "far gone in Utopian speculations." Publius continues explaining that human nature does not change and this can be seen throughout the course of human history. Hamilton in Federalist 34 writes; "To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and to model our political systems upon the speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character".

Our Founders and Framers were concerned with factionalism and with political parties that they believed would cause factionalism. They were correct and party differences existed from day one because governments are made by men who do not always share the same ideas. Disagreement and less then civil discourse has been around since men came together to debate and come to decisions. The question we must ask ourselves today is why are the Progressives so strident when it comes to the exchange of ideas. More importantly why are they insistent on their way and only their way? There is but one answer, caught up in their own narcissism, they believe they and their ideas are superior to all others. The Progressives live in but two time periods, that of Franklin Roosevelt and Woodstock. It was FDR who brought forth a Second Bill of Rights that could be instituted by government and taken away by government. Woodstock and the Sixties saw and idolization of teenagers by guilty adults who lost the courage to stand up to children. This in turn gave us the likes of Bill Clinton who honestly believed that his ideas were so great for the nation that he could do anything, including engaging in illegal actions, and could not be punished for it. This mindset is now the viewpoint of younger generations as witnessed by Obama and his cronies who believe that it is time for us to move forward with the redistribution of wealth, mandatory community service and a civil army directed by the White House to kick us off our property, take our guns, and kill us when we are to old to be of any use to the nation.