The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
From the Wikipedia article, "J'Accuse...!" (I Accuse) - “was an open letter published on 13 January 1898 in the newspaper L'Aurore by the influential writer Émile Zola. In the letter, Zola, who addressed President of France Félix Faure, accused his government of antisemitism and the unlawful jailing of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Army General Staff officer who was sentenced to lifelong penal servitude for espionage. Zola pointed out judicial errors and lack of serious evidence. The letter was printed on the front page of the newspaper and caused a stir in France and abroad. Zola was prosecuted for libel and found guilty on 23 February 1898. To avoid imprisonment, he fled to England, returning home in June 1899.
Other pamphlets proclaiming Dreyfus's innocence include Bernard Lazare's A Miscarriage of Justice: The Truth about the Dreyfus Affair (November 1896). As a result of the popularity of the letter, even in the English-speaking world, J'accuse! has become a common expression of outrage and accusation against someone powerful.
J'accuse! is one of the best-known newspaper articles in the world.”
Over the last several weeks I have Chirped on the modern Democrat Party, accusing them of holding ideals and Ideas not in accord with our American Ideals and Ideas. I have gathered these Chirps in this Article to provide a complete depiction of their betrayal of our American Ideals and Ideas. As in The Declaration of Independence - ‘To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.’ Therefore, J'accuse:
Our American Ideals and Ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are enshrined in our two founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Yet, very few Americans have read these documents, and fewer still understand their meaning. In discussing this with my cigar-smoking compadres, one of them inquired as to what I thought were the best half dozen or so books that properly expressed our American Ideals and Ideas. The below list from my “Book It” webpage (which reviews these books), and are my recommended reading list on this topic:
- The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition by Bernard Bailyn
- The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom by Thomas G. West
- The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur
- The Constitution: An Introduction by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen
- The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant 3rd Edition by Robert G. Natelson
- The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition by David F. Forte, Matthew Spalding, et al.
These books have helped formulate or crystalized my thoughts in my Miscellaneous Items and History Articles and in my Chirps. They are not political polemics but rational history and distinguished scholarship. Reading these books will give you a firm understanding of what our Founding Fathers believed and what they determined were our American Ideals and Ideas. These books provide the foundation of this article.
Much has been said over the debate of the interpretation of the Constitution on an ‘originalism’ or a ‘living’ basis. Yet, these terms are not clearly defined and are often defined improperly by each side of the issue. I recently came across a review by Edward Whelan of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition by David F. Forte, Matthew Spalding, et al. that succinctly summarized these different viewpoints as follows:
“. . . an underlying battle over the meaning of the Constitution and the power of the judiciary. The major combatants in this jurisprudential battle are originalists, on one hand, and advocates of the “living Constitution,” on the other.
In much the same way that Molière’s character was delighted to discover that he had been speaking in prose all his life without knowing it, most Americans would be surprised to discover that they are originalists. Even some ardent critics of “originalism” haven’t the slightest understanding of what they are criticizing: In a recent debate on the Alito nomination, a lefty law professor arguing against me ridiculously charged that originalists seek a return to the original 1787 Constitution, without any of the amendments, “not even the Bill of Rights!” An anti-Alito editorial in the Boston Globe hinged on a similar mistake.
The term “originalism” merely identifies the traditional, common-sense principle that the meaning of the various provisions of the Constitution — yes, including all those amendments — is to be determined in accordance with the sense they bore at the time they were adopted. This principle, which inheres in the very nature of the Constitution as law, is readily grasped outside the realm of contentious political issues. Virtually everyone will intuitively understand, for example, that the only sensible way to determine what it means to be a “natural born Citizen” — a criterion of eligibility for the presidency — is to look to the sense of that phrase at the time it was adopted.
We originalists understand the Constitution to have created a scheme of representative government in which the vast bulk of decisions are, for better or worse, made by the people through their elected representatives. Judges, under an originalist perspective, can legitimately intervene to override a legislative enactment only when the enactment violates the original meaning of a constitutional provision.
Originalist jurisprudence does not provide an easy answer to every constitutional question, for originalists will differ among themselves on the scope of the rules and principles set forth in the Constitution as well as on subsidiary methodological questions. But originalism provides an objective — and, we originalists maintain, the only legitimate — measure of what the Constitution actually means.
Proponents of the “living Constitution,” by contrast, maintain, at bottom, that the Constitution means whatever five justices want it to mean. This plasticity is necessary, they claim, in order for our society to adapt to changing circumstances. But this claim ignores the broader play that originalism gives to the democratic processes to adapt policies to new conditions. And, by entrenching current policy preferences in the Constitution, the “living Constitution” approach deprives future generations of the very adaptability that it vaunts.
The “living Constitution” is a deceptive euphemism, not a coherent theory. Though intellectually bankrupt, its approach is politically powerful because it promises — and has delivered — results. For decades now, the Left has won through the courts undeserved victories — on matters like abortion, radical secularism, and obscenity — that it could not possibly have won through the political processes. The more unpopular its agenda (same-sex marriage, anyone?), the more dependent it is on judicial usurpation.”
The proponents of a living Constitution often redefine the meaning of words and/or terms in the Constitution to make their interpretations more palatable to constitutional law. In doing so, they often expand or add to the powers and scope of the Federal government and transfer the implementation of policy from the elected representatives in Congress to the unelected Judiciary. This is antithetical to our constitutional division and balance of powers, and it often negatively impacts the liberties of Americans, as I have Chirped on, “07/nn/21 Power vs. Liberty”. As such, the living Constitution interpretation needs to be abandoned to preserve our American Ideals and Ideas.
And the proponents of ‘a living Constitution’ are the Democrat Party.
A recent article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Democratic Party won't admit it's become the party of wealth”, contains some very interesting facts about the wealthy in America. Some of the most salient facts are:
“The two parties are switching class constituents. Some 65% of the Americans making more than $500,000 a year are Democrats, and 74% of those who earn less than $100,000 a year are Republicans, according to IRS statistics.”
“By 2018, Democratic representatives were in control all 20 of the wealthiest congressional districts. In the recent presidential primaries and general election, 17 of the 20 wealthiest ZIP codes gave more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans.”
“Increasingly, the Democrats are a bicoastal party of elites from corporate America, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the media, universities, entertainment and professional sports. All have made out like bandits from globalization.”
And these rich and powerful people and their Congressional districts are isolated from the rest of the (flyover) country. Many of the negative impacts of laws, rules, and regulations do not reach the rich and powerful or their neighborhoods, while many government actions positively impact their wealth and power. Increasingly, there seems to be a two-tiered justice and governmental system in which enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations apply to most Americans but not so much to the rich and powerful Americans. Much Federal legislation has special provisions that provide exemptions (especially for taxes rates and tax exemptions) that benefit the rich and powerful. Special access to Congresspersons and Executive Officers by the rich and powerful is the norm.
And much of this is because of the reach of the Federal Government into the everyday lives and commerce of Americans. The more the Federal Government legislates and regulates our lives and commerce, the more it is in the interests of the rich and powerful to integrate themselves into the halls of Federal government to influence this legislation and regulation. And this growth of the Federal government was and is created and expanded by the Democrat Party in the 20th and 21st centuries. And all of this growth of the Federal government was fueled by Progressive ideology on the role of government in society. A Progressive ideology that was often counter to the American ideals of Limited and Enumerated Powers of Government for the protection of Natural Rights, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, Representative-Democracy, and Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Therefore, the Democrat Party has become The Party of the Rich and Powerful and shall remain so as long as we have a Progressive Ideology that permeates government.
“Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The saying—rules for thee, but not for me—is a common one in reference to politicians, especially so in the case of elected officials who decide that they and their supporters deserve protections the rest of us are to be denied. This most often occurs with special interests groups, campaign contributors, and the rich and powerful. This has been the nature of politicians since time immemorial, and I expect it will always occur now in the future. But Que Sera, Sera (what will be, will be), and this Chirp is not about this type of double standard.
Rather, it is about the hypocrisy of condemning the speech and conduct of the opposition while ignoring the same type of speech and conduct of your supporters. It is also the hypocrisy of establishing laws, rules, and regulations for others while exempting or ignoring these laws, rules, or regulations for themselves. It is also about the hypocrisy of when Congressional leaders of one party wish to conduct business in one manner when they are in power and another manner when they are out of power. And most egregiously, when they decide on whom to prosecute for criminal acts based on their politics.
The Democrat Party leaders are quick to condemn Republicans and Conservatives when their words and deeds are beyond the pale, but they remain silent or pronounce excuses when Democrats and Progressives/Leftists' words and deeds are beyond the pale. Republicans, however, often condemn fellow Republicans and Conservatives as well as Democrats and Progressives/Leftists when their words and deeds are beyond the pale. And when Democrats do condemn fellow Democrats or Progressive/Leftists, it is because the political heat or poll numbers turn against them, rather than out of principles or convictions.
When Congress passes laws and the Executive branch makes regulations, they often exempt themselves and the Judiciary from these rules and regulations. This is done under the principle that one branch of government cannot interfere in operations of another branch of government, except in the oversight powers of Congress on the Executive Branch and the Constitutionality review powers of the Judiciary. While this is an important principle, it often makes the three branches of government immune from the laws and regulations that the rest of America and Americans must obey (especially workplace laws and regulations). While both Democrats and Republicans do so, it is often the Democrats that expand this principle to arbitrarily immunize themselves from the laws and regulations that the rest of America and Americans must obey.
The other more glaring example of their double standard is in the COVID-19 Pandemic rules and regulations that they imposed upon America and Americans. Notwithstanding the questions of the constitutionality of these rules and regulations, we have often seen the elected and appointed officials ignoring these rules and regulations when it comes to their own or their families’ actions. While some Republicans have done so, it is the Democrats who have most often done so.
When the Democrats obtain control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and/or the Presidency, they often unilaterally modify or ignore the rules and procedures of the Congress and the Executive office to advantage themselves at the expense of the Republicans. And it is often done by the Democrat Leadership without concurrence by Democrat or Republican membership, nor with consultation with Republican leadership. Republicans rarely do this, and when they do this, it is often done by putting it to a vote by all members or with the concurrence of the Democrat Party leaders.
Some of the more flagrant examples are the changing of filibuster rules and attempting to eliminate the filibuster, the improper utilization of reconciliation to pass legislation, committee rules, and procedures being ignored, Chairpersons of Committees disallowing questions from the Republicans and not allowing due process in the questioning of witnesses before committees, not allowing Republicans to subpoena documents and witnesses, and restricting the scope of investigations to only reveal half-truths. Many of the more flagrant examples of this were during the (two) House impeachment hearings of President Trump, and it can also be seen with the current House investigations of the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as well as the attempts to pass the current President Biden budget and infrastructure spending legislation.
The mob violence of the 2020s, which resulted in deaths, injuries, arson, property destruction, and looting, perpetuated by Progressives/Leftists, was defended by the Democrats, assisted by the actions of Law Enforcement by Democrat Mayors and Governors, and not prosecuted by Democrat local District Attorneys or State Attorney Generals. However, the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by far-right individuals that resulted in trespass, theft, and destruction of property was vigorously confronted by Democrat Congressional Laws Enforcement and is being fully prosecuted, and in some cases, being maliciously prosecuted.
Therefore, the Democrat Party is most often the party that practices a double standard, especially when they control the reigns of power within the government.
American is more divisive today than it has been for several decades. The question of the reasons for this divisiveness is important to be answered to mend this divide. Many have blamed President Trump and Republican leaders for this divisiveness, while many have blamed President Biden and the Democrat party leaders for this divisiveness. And they both share in this blame. But the underlying reasons for this divisiveness are the people who believe in “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” and those who espouse these falsehoods.
There is also the difference between Progressives/Leftists and Constitutional Conservatism in their interpretation of the Constitution, as I have written in my article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. Progressives/Leftists and Democrats tend to interpret the Constitution in a democratic manner, while Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans tend to interpret the Constitution in a republican manner. A secondary difference is in their style of governance, as I have written in my article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”, where Democrats tend to rule while Republicans tend to lead.
When you believe something to be true, you act upon these beliefs. If these beliefs are unfounded, then you will take foolhardy actions. As to your beliefs, you should always remember one of my “Truisms”:
"Just because you "believe"
something to be true does not mean that you "know" something is
true, and just because someone says something is true doesn’t make
- Mark Dawson
We no longer discuss issues and concerns within America based on “Reasoning” and with proper “Dialog & Debate” but instead argue for the purposes of political gamesmanship and political power. We no longer try to persuade Americans as to our opinions but try to impose our opinions on Americans. Name-calling, pejoratives, and sloganeering are substituted for polite and respectful speech. Compromising and bilateralism are considered a sign of weakness and are not tolerated within the political sphere. Legislation is stalled or discarded if it does not implement one side or the other policy positions. And most importantly, we have forgotten the meaning of Free Speech in America. This is the root cause of divisiveness in America.
While President Trump and Republican leaders have engaged in these activities, it is President Biden and the Democrat party leaders that have utilized the strategy and tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, for the purposes of political gain. The Democrat Party and their supporters often use pejoratives (i.e., Racist, Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, or Bigoted amongst other pejoratives) to characterize their opponents rather than discuss the merits of their policies. The Democrat Party has exhibited that no compromise or bipartisanship is no be allowed, and their attitude toward legislation appears to be that if it does contain all that they want, then the legislation is not to be considered and scuttled. It is also true that the modern Democrat Party is structured on identity politics and the pitting of one group against another to win votes and achieve political power. Victimhood is also part and parcel of the Democrat Party divisiveness strategy, and victimhood requires another group to be oppressors. Consequently, all Americans are divided into groups, and it is possible for an American to be part of multiple groups instead of viewing Americans as part of one group – Americans.
The Democrat Party has forgotten our American Ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” require that each American be treated equally to all other Americans and that Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” means all the people and not groups of people. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Divisiveness.
To determine who is racist is to first determine the meaning of racism. The most basic determination of racism is from the great speech of "Martin Luther King, Jr., - I Have a Dream":
“I have a dream that my four little
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their
- Martin Luther King Jr.
When a person’s words and deeds are “judged by the color of their skin”, the person so judging them is a racist. When a person does not judge another “by the content of their character”, they may be practicing racism. When the laws, rules, and regulations of government differentiate between people “by the color of their skin”, they are perpetuating racism.
And the Democrat Party has a long and bitter history of racism, as I have pointed out in my articles, “Slavery and Discrimination Rooted in Party Politics” and “Democrats: The Party of Systemic Racism”. This Democrat Party racism has morphed from overt to covert by the modern Democrats proclaiming themselves as champions in the fight against racism, but their actions reveal the true nature of their racism. The very social programs and policy agendas that they support in this supposed fight against racism are based on racial identity and the bigotry of soft expectations based on race. Social policies that favor one racial group over another are racist, social policies that expect less from one racial group or another are racist, and social policies that place guilt or victimhood on one race or the other are racist. And these social policies are the agenda of the Democrat Party.
The ideas of ‘Critical Race Theory’, ‘The 1619 Project’, ‘Black Lives Matter’, Systemic Racism, Equity, Reparations, Affirmative Action, and Special Benefits or Tax Exemptions based on race are manifestations of the racism of the Democrat Party. They are also antithetic to our American ideals and ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.
Therefore, the party of racism in America is the Democrat Party.
“My fellow Americans: ask not what
your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
- President John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address
At one time, the Democrat Party was an American patriotic party, as the above quote illustrates. However, since that time, the Democrat Party has morphed into anti-Americanism in its beliefs. As the Democrat Party has drifted leftward in the last several decades, it has adopted many of the attitudes and language of the Anti-Americanism of the left. Socialism (or Democratic Socialism), anti-capitalism, unlimited free trade, open borders for immigration, and Internationalism have predominated their beliefs and speech. Denigration of American history and America’s achievements have become de rigueur in their words and deeds.
They hold America to a utopian ideal, and when America has not met that ideal, they disparage America. But no country in the world or history of the world has ever met that ideal, nor is it possible to meet that ideal. They do not acknowledge that America has brought forth more Liberty and Freedom, prosperity, and positive advances in the condition of humankind than any other country in the past or present history of the world.
Rather than improve America, they seem to want to ‘fundamentally transform’ America. A transformation for which they have no proof or evidence that it would be better for America and Americans. Indeed, many of their ideas have been shown to be detrimental when implemented in other countries. They are, however, good at making excuses for this detriment in claiming the imperfection of the implementation of these ideas in other countries. However, no idea of social order or government can be perfect as people are imperfect. And many of their ideas ignore or disregard human nature, and any social or governmental policy which does not account for human nature is doomed to failure.
Although the Democrat Party and its supporters profess to be patriotic, it is a patriotism based on their ideals and ideas of a ‘Democratic Constitution’ and a ‘Living Constitution’ which I will discuss in my next Chirp on, “07/21/21 The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution”. Therefore, the Democrat Party and its supporters are not patriotic to American Ideals and Ideas but to their own ideals and ideas.
From the Wikipedia article on Economics:
“Economics is the social science that studies how people interact with value; in particular, the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behaviour and interactions of economic agents and how economies work. Microeconomics analyzes basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, their interactions, and the outcomes of interactions. Individual agents may include, for example, households, firms, buyers, and sellers. Macroeconomics analyzes the economy as a system where production, consumption, saving, and investment interact, and factors affecting it: employment of the resources of labour, capital, and land, currency inflation, economic growth, and public policies that have impact on these elements.”
Economics is a soft science due to its complexity and numerous interactions between the complexities. It is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to reach sound conclusions or predictions with economics. Economics is also a dynamic science rather than a static science, as a change in one of the complexities or interactions propagates throughout the other complexities or interactions, which then feedback into the other complexities or interactions. However complex and interactive economics is, it is real and important within society, or as the saying goes, ‘money makes the world go round’ - Paul Van Der Merwe.
Every law, rule, or regulation that government creates, modifies, or removes has an economic impact. Whether it is a small or large impact depends on what it impacts and the economic feedback impacts as a result. And all these impacts are subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Given the large size and intrusiveness of the Federal Government, we can safely say that even the smallest addition/change/removal can have a large economic impact due to the propagation effect of economics. Within the Federal Government, the budget, the deficit spending and the debt, the taxing, the expenditures, the laws and regulations, etc., have an impact not only on the Federal government but on all of society. And people and businesses react differently to these changes, which also adds to the economic feedback impacts on society.
And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:
"Experts ought to be on tap and not
- Irish editor and writer George William Russell
Most Congressional Representatives and Senators often started out in the law or education professions, and many started out as public servants (a nice-sounding term for a career politician). Some have been businesspeople or doctors, while others could be deemed community activists, along with a smattering of other professions. All of these, except the businesspeople, have had professions that are generally insulated from the daily forces of economic commerce. They have not had to meet a payroll nor expend monies for employee benefits, pay governmental business taxes or fees, nor implement governmental regulation into their economic lives. In addition, they have not had to respond to the economic law of supply and demand and competitive pricing. And given my own personal experience, I dare say they have no idea of the complexities of business overhead costs. To these non-businessperson politicians, these are abstracts, while to the businesspersons that are impacted by these laws, rules, or regulations that government creates, modifies, or removes, it is known as ‘The Real World’.
Many of the politicians and bureaucrats who vote for or implement laws, rules, or regulations that impact the economics of society do so primarily for political purposes and pay little heed to economics or engage in wishful thinking about the economic impacts. They pick and choose economists that agree with their policy positions and agendas and discount or ignore economist who disagrees with them. They also rely on static models of economic impacts as these models provide firmer but often less accurate predictions of the economic impacts of legislation and regulations. Alas, so it has been during my entire life. The question is not how to reign in the politicians but how to elect politicians who are more attuned to the economic impacts of government on society.
The answer to the question is for the electorate to pay attention to the economic impacts and ignore the wishful thinking of politicians. Due to the lack of knowledge on economics by the general public, it is often difficult for the general public to separate the wheat from the chaff of what politician says and claims about the economic impacts of their policy positions and political agendas. But the general public can determine the economic impacts by their pocketbook. The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are often at odds regarding governmental tax and spend economic impacts. However, as a generality (which is more or less true depending on circumstances), it can be said that modern America's economic growth and prosperity is greater when the Republicans have the reins of government, while growth and prosperity are often static, modest in growth, or in decline when the Democrats have the reins of government.
This is because the Democrats utilize static modeling to determine economic impacts, and often engage in wishful thinking about economics, and disregard the diverse reactions of people and businesses to their policies. They are also more concerned about public policy agendas at the expense of negative economic impacts, and when negative economic impacts occur, they are inclined to spend more monies to alleviate the negative economic impacts (which rarely works). After negative economic impacts occur, they often make excuses utilizing inane or nonsensical economic platitudes to justify their actions. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Anti-Economics.
Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others. Capitalism's primary thrust is to provide as many goods and services and in as an expedient and economical manner as possible while rewarding those who provide the goods and services that other people want. No other economic system except Capitalism has succeeded in bringing the people the goods and services they want at a price they can afford or in a timely manner than Capitalism. It has provided growth and innovation that benefits all. Unbridled Capitalism can do harm, but tightly regulated Capitalism can do more harm. We must reach a balance in Capitalism between protecting the people and expanding Capitalism to promote economic freedom and liberty to improve the lot of all the people. Doing so will provide job growth and tax revenues, and therefore a better economic climate for all.
Socialism and Democratic Socialism, wealth redistribution, income inequality, tax the rich, occupy Wall Street, free education, free healthcare, etc., is all the same principle – Socialism or ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.’ To implement these items requires that you take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). And it is accomplished through Government intimidation and coercion through threats of fines and/or imprisonment. The government decides what and how much to take and what and how much to give. This is not the same as taxes, as taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. Therefore, with Socialism, the government is the master of all the citizens, and the citizens are the serfs of the government.
The above two paragraphs are excerpted from my longish article, “Socialism is Acceptable”. This article also explains why Socialism is immoral, and Capitalism is pro Liberty and Freedom. For a fuller explanation and justification of these statements, I would highly recommend you take the time to read this article.
Today, in America and throughout the world, the belief that Socialism (or Democratic Socialism) is acceptable or viable has gained much traction. To believe this, however, is to ignore history and economic realities. For history has shown that any form of Socialism has economically failed, been oppressive to the Liberties and Freedoms of its citizens, and has impoverished the people within its clutches. While history has shown that Capitalism has economically thrived, liberated people, and raised the standard of living for those within Capitalism.
And much of these Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic ideas are being driven by Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Indeed, it is only on the Democrat Party side of the isles of Congress you will find any support for Anti-Capitalistic and Pro-Socialistic ideas. Unfortunately, this has been the history of the Democrat Party in the 20th and 21st centuries. Anti-Capitalistic Socialistic ideas that have disguised themselves in noble euphemistic phrases of; Entitlements, The Great Society, The War on Poverty, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Equity, Reparations, Human Infrastructure, etc., all for the purposes of "Greater Good versus the Common Good". All of these actual and proposed policies have a core socialist agenda – to take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). They also have the agenda of making people dependent on government subsidies and garner votes for Democrat Party candidates from those so subsidized. And all these policies have been Democrat Party policies. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic.
Our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned that power tends to grow at the expense of Liberty. That in human nature power is strong, and Liberty is weak, so, therefore, Liberty must be eternally vigilant to protect against the encroachments of power. By ‘Power’, the Founding Fathers meant Dominion of Government, i.e., the dominance of the people through legal authority. The Founding Fathers also knew that Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy often degenerate into Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Mob Rule, and they wished to protect the people from this degeneration. They, therefore, tried to assure through the Constitution a Democratic-Republic and the Limited and Enumerate Powers of the Federal Government, so that Liberty would be maintained and that we have leaders rather than rulers through free and fair elections.
With the rise of Federal Government powers in the 20th and 21st century, and the actions of Progressives/Leftists of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as well as with the support of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, and Social Media in condoning this increased Federal government power we are again entering into the anxieties and fears of Power versus Liberty. Many of the fears of the Anti-Federalism during the ratification of the Constitution have come to fruition with this rise in Federal Powers, despite the objections to these fears by the Constitution ratification supporters of “Federalism in the United States”. As a result, our present government is morphing into the Tyranny of Congress and the Presidency, an Oligarchy of appointed officials and the bureaucracies that support them, and a Mob Rule of the majority that does not recognize or countenance the Liberties and Freedoms (i.e., our Natural Rights) of all the people.
As I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", all of this increase of Federal Powers was achieved by Democrats and their Progressives/Leftists agenda. And all of this was obtained and maintained by the misleading and/or ruling of the American people. Consequently, the Democrats wish to be rulers and not leaders. America was not formulated to be ruled but to be led by the will of the people while protecting their Liberties. Therefore, to support the Democrat political agenda and socialistic goals is to be ruled and not led, and to be ruled is antithetical to the ideas of the United States Constitution.
With the administration of President Biden and the (slim) majority of the Democrat Party in Congress, we have seen them try to rapidly expand Federal Powers and to retain and increase their control of Congress, so that they can more easily pass their political agendas and socialistic goals. And these political agendas and socialistic goals all lead to more Federal Powers and the rulership of the Democrat Party over America.
The attempts of the Democrat Congress to pass the 2021H.R. 1 and S. 1 and different variations of this legislation that would federalize elections contrary to Article. I. Section. 4. of the Constitution that states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”, is an attempt to consolidate their powers as I have Chirped on, “03/06/21 Election Integrity – Part Deux”. This legislation would make it easier for them to cheat in elections in the urban areas of America, in which the Democratic Party controls the elections, which de facto makes elections unfree and unfair.
The Democrat Parties' past efforts to legalize illegal immigrants and give them the right to vote is also another attempt by them to obtain and retain power, as they believe that most of these votes would be for Democrat candidates. The Democrat Parties current open borders policy, which has allowed hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of illegal immigrants to enter America, and their subsequent efforts to transport these illegal immigrants to different parts of the country, is also an attempt by them to obtain and retain power if these new illegal immigrants eventually have the right to vote.
Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Power rather than the Party of Leadership in America.
In my article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”, I describe the two major ways that the Constitution can be interpreted. The question is then, what is the proper interpretation of the Constitution? If you cannot properly interpret the Constitution, then you cannot be a proper defender of the Constitution, and indeed, you will be hostile to the Constitution. My Book It articles on “07/01/21 The Library of Liberty – Part I” and “08/01/21 The Library of Liberty – Part II” provide a historical perspective on how the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be interpreted, and my Chirp on “07/13/21 ‘Constitutional Originalism’ versus ‘A Living Constitution’” provides some guidance on the proper answer to this question.
In my opinion, a ‘Republican Constitution’ and ‘Constitutional Originalism’ are the only proper way of interpreting the Constitution. Any other way of interpretation leaves the Constitution hallow and meaningless, as each generation of Americans could freely interpret the Constitution in any manner that they so desire. A ‘Republican Constitution’ and ‘Constitutional Originalism’ is built upon a foundation of bedrock, while a ‘Democratic Constitution’ and ‘A Living Constitution’ is built upon a foundation of sand. A functioning government and society need a solid foundation to succeed; otherwise, the underpinnings of society are fluid and susceptible to breakdown and collapse.
A ‘Democratic Constitution’ allows for the violation of an individual's Natural Rights; if the government or the majority makes a determination it is proper to do so for the greater good (see my Chirp terminology definition on "Greater Good versus the Common Good"). Therefore, with this interpretation, the Natural Rights of the individual are subordinate to the rights of a group if the majority so deems, which is the antithesis of our Founding Fathers beliefs on the role of government in society as expressed in The Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
and the Preamble of the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
A ‘Democratic Constitution’ does not recognize ‘certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ nor ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’, but infringes on our unalienable Rights and Liberties.
The ‘Living Constitution’ is a deceptive euphemism, not a coherent theory. Proponents of the “Living Constitution” maintain, at bottom, that the Constitution means whatever five justices want it to mean. This plasticity is necessary, they claim, in order for our society to adapt to changing circumstances. But this claim ignores the broader play that Constitutional Originalism gives to the democratic processes to adapt policies to new conditions. And, by entrenching current policy preferences in the Constitution, the ‘Living Constitution’ approach deprives future generations of the very adaptability that it vaunts.
The Democrat Party has adopted the ‘Democratic Constitution’ as the basis for implementing its political goals and policy agendas, and the ‘Living Constitution’ as a means for the Judiciary to impose its policies and political goals. To accomplish this, the Democrat Party often redefines the meaning of words and/or terms in the Constitution, or it utilizes “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” and “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” to justify the constitutionality of its political goals and policy agendas. They do so to shoehorn their political goals and policy agendas into the Constitution because they realize that many of these goals and policies are incompatible with the Constitutional “Limited and Enumerated Powers” of the Federal government.
Therefore. the Democrat Party is hostile to the American Ideals and Ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And, as such, they are violating their oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’.
The Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X) of the Constitution is the essential Liberties of all Americans that the government cannot violate. They are based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which in turn were based on our Founding Fathers' beliefs in our Natural Rights. These violations of principles by the British government led to the American Revolutionary War for independence. The Constitution as drafted and passed did not contain The Bill of Rights, as the drafters believed that the Limited and Enumerated Powers clause of the Constitution would be sufficient to prohibit the Federal government from encroaching on these rights. However, many of the Conventions of the States that passed the Constitution insisted on a Bill of Rights, and it was agreed that the first Congress would amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. James Madison (often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”) distilled hundreds of proposed amendments into twelve proposed amendments, of which ten were passed (see “James Madison's Failed Amendments” for information on the two amendments that did not pass). I have written my own thoughts on the Bill of Rights in the following articles, which are the basis for this Chirp:
- The Meaning of the 1st and 2nd Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- The Meaning of the 3rd through 8th Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the third through eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- The Meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment freedom of speech is under assault through the actions of intimidation and coercion via Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, and Wokeness. It is also being suppressed with the support of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, and Social Media, as I have written in my article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?". The freedom of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in American is being restricted to the home and place of worship and not permitted to be exercised in public life or commerce. The right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is being encumbered by rules and regulations as to when and where you may exercise this right. There is also an undercurrent of the fear of intimidation or prosecution if you exercise this right of assembly for non-politically correct ideas or support for candidates that oppose the policies and political goals of Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders.
The Second Amendment is under unrelenting assault by those that believe in gun control, as I have written in my article, “Gun Control”. Gun control is a belief that is counter to our Natural Right of self-protection, the protection of our families, and the protection of our communities from the actions of criminals, mob violence, foreign invasions, and despotic government actions.
Amendments Three through Eighth have been eroded by the actions of the government in investigating and prosecuting persons of interest for various statements and actions that may or may not be criminal. Originally these investigations were against suspected terrorists and their supporters, but they have now been expanded to persons who oppose government policies and actions. We have also seen the government investigating then prosecuting persons rather than actions. This is contrary to "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", as actions, not persons, should be the focus of justice. To do otherwise is to engage in a witch-hunt rather than the pursuit of justice.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have often been ignored or bypassed by legal sophistry throughout our history, but with the rise of Progressive thought and Federal government powers in the 20th and 21st century, they have almost become mostly irrelevant.
Today, the Bill of Rights is under assault by the tacit, if not outright support, of "Progressives/Leftists" and Democrat Party Leaders. Under the guise of Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, and with the support of Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, and Social Media, the Bill of Rights is being morphed from the protections of the individual against government actions into government actions that limit our individual Natural Rights to what they believe is for the greater good. But the greater good cannot be achieved when Natural Rights are restricted, for when you suppress someone’s Natural Rights, you harm not only the person but society as well. Someone’s Natural Rights may be limited, but only for the purposes of protecting another person’s Natural Rights.
However, the Bill of Rights must never be violated if we are to be a society dedicate to Liberty and Freedom. Therefore, the Modern Democrat Party, through its words and deeds as outlined above, has become Hostile to the Bill of Rights.
In my last dozen Chirps, I have examined how the modern Democrat Party has become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. In these Chips, I have written that the Democrat Party has its own ideals and ideas on society and government. However, nowhere are these ideals and ideas written in a Declaration or Constitution that can be rationally debated. Instead, these ideals and ideas are often stated in platitudes, banalities, generalities, clichés, bromides, inanities, hackneyed statements, and trite expressions, which makes them difficult, if not impossible, to critique based on intellectual “Reasoning”. Indeed, many of these ideals and ideas are based on emotional responses, rather than reasoning, to the problems facing America.
And their ideals and ideas are fluid dependent on polling numbers. When the polls turn against them, they claim that they were mischaracterized, misquoted, or they disclaim that they ever express these ideals and ideas. Therefore, their principles are lacking, and their primary motivation seems to be for obtaining and retaining power. While they believe that they are doing what is best for America, it cannot be what is best for America or Americans if it violates our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also need to remember the real answer to the question as to what is best for America and Americans:
“The most basic question is not what
is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell
As the Democrat Party also believes that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, and that they should be the only ones who decide what is best for America.
Many people believe that the greatest threat to America is either the Russians or the Chinese. However, these treats can be neutralized if the American people have the spirit and will to do so. The greatest threat to America is actually the Democrat Party, as they sap our spirit and will to take the proper steps to counter these threats and solve the problems in America. They are also a threat to our American Ideals and Ideals, as they wish to fundamentally transform America from a Democratic-Republic state to a socialistic state.
It is time for the people of America to educate and rededicate themselves to our American Ideals and Ideas. However, this cannot be accomplished until we turn out the Democrat Party from power, and they can reformulate themselves to our American Ideals and Ideas as our Founding Fathers envisioned them. Or, in the immortal words of President Lincoln in his dedication speech for the cemetery at the Battle of Gettysburg:
“- that this nation, under God,
shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the
- Abraham Lincoln