Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Democrat’s Micky-D’s politics (An analysis of anti-American Progressivism)

There once was an innocent time when children actually clamored for McDonald’s food before the multinational juggernaut of a fast food chain had to advertise the superficial slogan “I’m lovin’ it” to obscure the fact that the food is not of a particularly healthful quality.  That is a precise analogy for today's Democrats and the deleterious effect their anti-Capitalistic policies have on America. 

The very small clown car of four “same well” politicians includes (interchangeably): one shrew, one socialist, one buffoon and one empty suit.  Indeed, all the so-called contenders for the Democratic nomination sing from the same hymnal of “good sounding” vote-pandering appeals designed to woo the unemployed (and part-timers via Obamacare), the stupefied (the low-information voter via MSM) and the socially alienated masses (the Occupy movement and more recently Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD violently rioting “no justice, no peace; hands up, don't shoot” city-burning anarchists) for that Pavlovian lever pull.  (Full disclosure: that 'D' in the voting booth now stands not for Democrat, but for “dupe.”)  For example, which one of the quartet recently said: “Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create, in our own country, an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind.”  (The answer: failed Maryland governor and former mayor of the racial powder keg city Baltimore, MD.)  Certainly, the ever spunky Mr. O'Malley—a former outspoken advocate of madam's first unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008—could not possibly be referring to his dear friend Hillary Clinton (the former “dead broke and in debt” resident of the White House) who via the Charity-gate corruption scandal has parleyed her high level governmental influence as Obama’s first Secretary of State into the rarified air of the uber-rich: the 100 million dollar club of the huge carbon footprint private jets and gas-guzzling limousines.  She, the “queen of money-grubbing green” (and per the Secret Service, a potty-mouthed “queen of mean”), can afford a blasé, a modern day Marie-Antoinette ‘let-them-eat-cake’ persona, because she’s not one of the 93 million able-bodied, but idle citizens—desperate for gainful, full time employment with or without health insurance—who would scarcely dream of her Grey Poupon lifestyle, let alone pay the rent. 

Even taking a family of four to McDonald’s would be a luxury for the rest us.  What difference, at this point, does it make?  A great deal actually if any one of these progressive keystone cops are put in charge of “the land of the free” going forward.  Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the other stagehands—place-holders to promote the fiction that the Democratic nomination is a contest rather than a fait accompli—are cut from the same rabble-rousing (“There is only the fight...”) Sal Alinsky mold.  Their ilk foment and prey upon the despair of the masses in order to get elected (as in Hillary’s case in 2016) or reelected (in Obama’s in 2012).  Given the last six years, I have serious doubts that any of them—collectively—could successfully run a child’s lemonade stand.  Besides taxing and regulating the hell out of it, of course.

By contrast, the Republicans are drawing a diverse field of non-professional politician contenders like Fiorina [the private sector]; Carson and Paul [former medical doctors] and one minister (and former TV personality) [Huckabee] as well as a cadre of truly substantive and up-and-coming political leaders [Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio] and the yet undeclared, but accomplished Scott Walker and family dynasty scion, Jeb Bush.  Throw a dart: any one of them would be a vastly superior choice to Hillary.

Progressivism belies a more critical and deeper-seeded issue that warrants a needed cultural discussion.  To my mind that political philosophy is an anti-American pathology infusing the ranks and the leadership of the Democratic party.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  It left me.”  Democrats have come so far off the boil that one of their most popular and beloved standard-bearers JFK, who at the time of his 1960s presidency advocated pro-business tax cuts (“By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth”), a strong military and anti-Communism (there would be no throwing of his metaphorical arms around the dictator Fidel Castro in a loving Obama embrace) would be considered, at minimum, a moderate Republican and fiscal conservative.  Specifically, Kennedy expressed his cherished Catholicism in faith-based speeches.  He was staunchly pro-Capitalist: free trade, strong dollar, low taxes and low deficits.  And, to illustrate the cavernous divide between Mr. Kennedy and today’s mainstream Democrats most tellingly, the 35th U.S. president was pro-individual responsibility.  The Party would show Mr. Kennedy the door on the basis of that final position alone.

In an alternative universe can anyone with a straight face imagine Mr. Obama as a Kennedy-Democrat uttering his famously patriotic and selfless words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for you country?”  Not hardly.  As the last six years clearly demonstrates, Obama’s temperament (“the fundamental transformation of America”) shows absolutely no reverence for the American ideal Kennedy valued.  JFK was a unifier and a stark defender of the United States; Obama is a weak kneed apologist who publicly condemns his own country to the glee, no doubt, of America’s geo-political foes. 

One of my favorite, personal colloquialisms is “just because there’s a MacDonald’s on every corner doesn’t mean it’s [a] good [thing].”  The MSM, everywhere too, continues to slickly promote the very people and policies antithetic to a healthily functioning America.  It is time for rank-and-file Americans to reject the Left’s ‘whack-a-mole’ game of divisive victimhood-politics.  In the mold of a youthful, federal government-slashing version of Reagan, we should elect an outspoken pro-American and fiscal conservative.  Perhaps a strict Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz paired with a hands-on practical reformer like Scott Walker is a team worth clamoring for. 

I’m lovin’ it.

No comments:

Post a Comment