by Mark Angelides
Most democratic nations follow a system whereby two or more opposing parties vie for votes, receive a certain amount of representation based on their vote share, and spend their time trying to barter, cajole, or force through legislation that will either be better for their target demographic or ensure new votes in the next cycle. But what happens when the system breaks down? What happens when the purpose of power becomes the holding of power and nothing more? The Democrats have given up seeking votes; now they just want the power.
When you consider how prevalent identity politics has become, it seems strange that the Dems are now fighting policy that would be good for their traditional key demographics. In President Trump’s “YUUGELY” popular congressional speech, he outlined policies that will (if correctly enacted) do good for pretty much all U.S citizens. But looking at the audience (the Dem side), they decided to make a statement of “non-support”. And “non-support” is fine if it’s against something that you don’t believe in, but this was directly against:
- Jobs. Tens of thousands of new jobs either being created or being kept in the U.S.
- Drug treatment and Security. Bringing the flow of drugs into the U.S to a halt and providing better care for those who need rehabilitation.
- Uniting all Americans.
What could they possibly have been objecting to? What is it about safety and prosperity that they don’t like? I would suggest that it’s the possibility of citizens being free from the shackles of the State. If you don’t need the State to support you: that’s freedom. And they don’t want people to be free. “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” as Benito Mussolini described his ideal of totalitarianism. And this is the Democrats blueprint for the future. The only thing standing in their way is the voting public.
Should we take the time to think about the Democrat’s (and by association and design, the Left’s) reactions to Donald Trump’s win, we can see that they are not the actions of a group looking to win the next election.
Permanent Protest
The U.S has seen almost constant protests since the inauguration. Many are supported by or endorsed by (and in some cases, attended by), people within the Democrat party. An effective opposition party is NOT a protest group. An effective government is NOT a protest group. To run a country, you need to be FOR something, not against everything.
Refusal to Cooperate
No one should follow an unjust law. But refusing to cooperate with basic laws that are already in place (and that you have cooperated with before), show a certain amount of immaturity. As the Brits like to say “throwing their teddies out the pram”. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If they ever do regain power, what’s to stop the other side using the same tactics: protests, court actions and non-compliance to frustrate and hold up the business of government?
When a party loses an election, it is a time to “learn Lessons.” They should be thinking about policies, best-practices, and “the message” that will unite the nation behind them. But they’re not doing this. The Left are no longer interested in seizing power through the ballot box, so what is their plan?