In End Game – Part 1 I outlined the origins of a fundamental shift within the DNC from one of different viewpoints from that of the country’s conservatives to that of such an ideological opposed position of nearly every level that they can no longer be seen as striving for the same goal. Democrats and Republicans had always been at odds, don’t get me wrong here, but both parties had looked toward bettering America in ways there were not so contentious to cause massive social strife or ill will against fellow citizens. It was for this reason the Bull Moose party was born in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt as both parties had become too similar and infected by special interests, corporate lobbyists and failed to recognize the popular sentiment of and will of the people. Theodore Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative who was progressive on social issues even ending a Maine strike and siding with the union in improving working hours and increasing worker’s pay. He worked to constrain the power and influence of business at a time when it was taking advantage of the country, sound familiar?
Theodore Roosevelt was popular because he wanted to bring back the moderate views and voices within government as well as making the people’s voices heard as government was to be of the people. His progressive movement failed on the national level as Republicans were split and Democrats felt united and stopped supporting the movement. The party did retain strength on the local level influencing many state governments for nearly a decade later. It was this rally that began to movements discussed in Part 1. Over the past 30 years I have been able to witness the tipping point within the DNC as the radical ideals of the fringe grew and overtook the moderates through a new strategy known as “big tent”. Those who have studied politics will know all about this. For those not familiar I will give a very quick run down.
The 1960’s was a politically active decade full of causes and groups all seeking a voice and power. The conservative took little notice and those participants viewed them as the establishment and reasons for all their problems, simple rebellion. The DNC capitalized on this by spreading its growing socialists and communist sympathizing message and accepting all groups with promises of giving them a clear voice with the power to enact change. The wild eyed and social active peoples of the 1960’s had to eventually grow up. In the 1970’s these people moved into society getting jobs and continuing their movements, just more subtly as educators, administrators and community organizers. The harsh realities of getting day jobs did not dull their illusions, to the contrary it steeled their convictions. The DNC had now won over all the feminists from the GOP who had championed the women’s voting rights as well as other protections. The DNC also found a way to accept the civil rights activists as well as the civil rights backers, both from different philosophies. The tolerance and inclusion atmosphere now opened up for homosexuals, immigrants, and others who were just a mere 60 years despised and railed against by the party old guard, now nearly dead.
The big tent philosophy created a broad platform of appeal, the tolerance allowed those who were pro choice to exist alongside with pro abortion and population control advocates even if their philosophies were not cohesive toward the same goal. The DNC now had a vast bank of intellectual capital that could hammer out radical ideals with just enough temperament to take the edge off and make it palatable for the large moderate section of the party. If the 1960’s were the eruption of liberalism and radical leftist ideas then the 1970’s was the cooling and solidifying of a new continent of ideas, ideology, and philosophy of where to take the party and the country. The DNC abandoned the idea of letting people lead the party and adopted the idea of the party leading the people. Government expanded in the 1970’s under a Democrat president and large majority Congress after. Unfortunately for them the sweeping social changes and movements proposed became bogged down with OPEC embargos and foreign policy blunders punctuated with policies that led to a stagnant economy slide into recession seeing spiraling debt, double digit unemployment, inflation, and unemployment showing an economy teetering on disaster. The decade that started out and ended with strife of Vietnam falling hopelessly unpopular and mainstream media shaping war policy, the take down of Nixon, and increased influence over the public. It ended with the sting of economic hopelessness, Iran hostage mess that lasted for longer then anyone had the patience for numerous oil crises, restrictive energy policies, banking regulations, and a sense of a nation being adrift with a Japan economy quickly poised to overtake American economic power. Book ended between this was the only highlight, a patriotic reemergence of Bruce Jenner and the Bicentennial of the nation. Liberals were too busy trying to implement their policies and radical ideology that they lost sight of the economy and mood of the nation, it resulted in a new decade of conservatism that was more moderate and gave the country hope.
As the 1980’s rolled in and the Iran hostage crises vanished from the social consciousness the economy began to show signs of life as a GOP engineered recession reset the past policies and saw the Federal Reserve begin to do its job with interest rates slowly come down and liquidity began to flow from the top down. Regan jumpstarted the defense industry by rapidly rebuilding the military using the common enemy of communism and the USSR’s steps as a unifying common cause to defeat on two fronts. The politics was not dominated by conservatives or the GOP, but from a moderate tone and populist feeling that made the DNC pick and choose its policies and temper its message to keep their numbers stable. The country was still seeing itself as very conservative and Christian but the ideas and policies coming from within the far left side of the DNC began to attack this influence through a series of uncoordinated yet similar goaled set of initiatives. Political correctness began to sweep the nation from within the education system itself. Spearheaded by the attack on gender specific pronouns and going so far left as to try to create a series of new gender neutral pronouns that were quickly laughed out of existence, thank goodness, and followed up with attacks on the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, abolishing competition and competitive drives in physical education teaching curriculum. Society was still changing, advancing, and moving more toward the center. The left continued pulling and dragging with trying to gain popularity for such programs as affirmative action, expansion of welfare and social programs from assistance to the poor to seniors financial and medical care.
Unfortunately the programs of the 1980’s came with a cost, deficit spending and dependence on industrial output instead of incentives in developing new technology sectors. The legacy was punctuated with the fall of the Berlin Wall and rise of Polish labor unions gaining world recognition for standing up to the Soviet Union’s puppet regimes as well as waning Soviet power as they entered Afghanistan to fight with tribal leaders preventing them to push further into the Middle East. While the conservatives and independents voted in the GOP candidate the Congress again went to the DNC where the radical views and ideas tried since the 1970’s kept coming in slightly different tones to make them seem more appealing. While George H.W. Bush was able to stage a foreign policy victory with the Persian Gulf War victory and Communism falling in the Soviet Union after the country went broke and its eastern block began to break free, the situation at home was deteriorating. Recession was again at hand, domestic policies dominated the nation’s mind and Bush was forced to run on a more conservative platform. The DNC dropped the old guard for what it called the New Era Democrat. Bill Clinton masterfully dodged all his own scandals and missteps to beat Jerry Brown in the DNC primaries. This gave new hope to the new DNC which had nearly abandoned its moderate position. While Clinton ran on a moderate platform and even won some points for his first piece of legislation from conservative moderates, the DNC controlled Congress decided to take advantage of the situation and began pushing for more leftist policies. This resulted in a back lash in midterm elections and the Congress returned to a more balanced position. Meanwhile the policies and practices of the past decade accelerated with gay rights, de-sexualizing the work place, and expanding the entitlements to lower class citizens cumulating in an ear of legislation from the bench as lawsuits reshaped many areas of society. This was not necessarily a bad thing, however it showed the will of the DNC to work around the normal political process to bring far left ideas into the front and center of the society before the country was ready to accept it.
The 1990’s is seen by the DNC as a hay day of liberalisms successes. Domestically they achieved budget surpluses, low unemployment, advancing programs and policies that made equality feel as a reality to minorities. Trade wise they achieved free trade agreements as well as access into previously hampered markets. On the foreign policy front with the USSR no more people began to debate the US policy and practices of getting involved in oversea conflicts. Essentially the DNC had erased the bad taste of liberalism from the Carter years from the American consciousness. Up to the end of the century the country was quickly shedding its stuffy, top button, conservative ideas and seemed like the liberal ideals and policies would become a reality soon after the turn of the centaury. What was not taken into account of though was a quickly growing backlash against growing liberalism. Small eruptions occurred in isolated incidents bringing to the national dialogue such things as the validity of the Second Amendment in the modern age. Hate crimes became a definition as racial and religious tensions seemed to boil over from nowhere. Despite all the progress, advances, wealth, and equality the mood of the nation was not matching all the seen results. Things turned sour on Clinton as the failed attempt to pass nationalized health care was followed up by numerous scandals punctuated with Monica Lewinski. Liberalism was again tied to sleazy, greasy, immoral behavior. There was an unsaid pessimism in the country with some going to the far right fringe for comfort and ideas.
The mainstream liberals were now the former left wing ideologues who just 30 years prior were a scattered fringe of their party. They had succeeded in stepping over the moderates and old guard of their party and were bound and determined to pull the country to their version of left of center. This is what led to the GOP’s Contract with America that gained popular support of the people but quickly fizzled when it failed to temper the drag to the left by the Congress and its failures to accomplish much. A new tide of ill will toward the DNC rose to meet the swelling acceptance of the liberal ideal in the 2000 election, one that ended with a stand off over who won as Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral college through tight state votes highlighting the failures of the aging voting system in place in some key states. The liberals did not take the loss well. Adding insult to injury the GOP won a majority in the Congress giving them full control not seen for almost two decades. The activism of the left only took the message for the electorate as a challenge, feeling cheated, spited, and sore they felt as if they did not go far enough to the left to win over the independents.
Out of nowhere the cultural and political landscape of the country was redefined by the terrorists attacks of September 11th, eight months into the new presidency. Overnight the national attention was focused on a common foe, America went back to war, with a vengeance. Soon after Bush became much more hawkish and abandoned the moderate tone he was elected on. The unity and political alliances forged in the wake of the attacks quickly dissolved as Bush and Chaney quickly turned the corner and began instituting 1950’s style policies in the name of national security. The mainstream of the left drew particular offense to these measures as their founders and instructors had lived through this era that lead to their marginalization, in their minds. I remember being in college at the time, a vocal veteran and supporter of the war and dealing with my professors ire and accusations. Their views were reflected just 8 years later in a world wide US bashing tour by its chief executive. The left continued its push through social and judicial actions, coming at time into direct conflict and meeting resistance with tempers and acid tongues instead of reflection and caution. It was at this stage I was made aware the DNC was crystallized in its ideology, message, and assertion they were much better suited to run the country and people’s lives then the masses. The ideas flowing off the minds of the intellectual elites and the inclusion of former militants and radicals into their inner circles were clues clear enough to show this to the world, if only people had been paying attention. Liberals kept pushing with continued social attacks including a movie describing the assignation of the president by a disgruntled military member. Conservatives however did not respond with a tempered message preferring a more moderate tone resulting in continued losses in Congress up the 2008 national election.
The fervor and acidity of the DNC message had over reached thinking the overall success of Obama’s election and a Congressional super majority were a mandate to finally shift the country into a left leaning socialists hybrid akin to China’s modern flavor of communism. Obama continuously used the unpopularity of Bush as a president as an excuse for all his troubles, up to his most recent State of the Union address to America. Liberals had believed the perfect storm of popularity, bad economic times, war fatigue, and continued social liberalism were signals for them to socialize the US by instituting a permanent government take over of many private sectors of American society. This was most recently met with a renewed back lack led by independents and conservatives and not the far right fringe or the GOP as the left initially thought. Over the past 35+ years the far left went from fringe to mainstream of their party and now have little tolerance toward anyone or anything standing in their way, including members of their own party. The sense of urgency has taken hold giving their party an air of nervousness, arrogance, and hysteria seldom seen in politics. The DNC has been hijacked and their ideology is no longer cohesive with that of conservatives, independents, or even moderate liberals. Where we used to see the ultimate goal as improving America as a nation of self reliant and hard working peoples who would steer their own destiny instead of a government doing so for them is now lost to the liberals. The actions, discussions, and admissions of plans thus far show they are determined to mover the country beyond self reliance to something akin to subservience and dependence on government. This concludes Part 2. We have seen the origins and now the radicalization of the party. Part 3 will look at where this is ultimately going, from a logical point of view. The problem many have had with mainstream liberals of late is they have refused to believe their true intent and mission. Unless we wake up and demand the party moderate itself I fear the country is in for a very turbulent period. If conservatives give up and don’t push past breaking the legislative majority this November then it will just come back, as seen in 1976, 1992, and 2008. This needs to be taken more seriously and seen as an ideological battle as serious as that between radical Islam and the West.