![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/democrats-republicans-300x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Our own Veritas Omnia Vincit is back. In between Spring Cleaning and sailboat maintenance, he’s been commenting on occasion and has noticed, “…a lot of talk about liberal Democrats and I naturally had to write an essay on how Democrats aren’t actually liberal…I might be writing one on how Republicans aren’t actually conservative as well…and then definitely one on the idea that we no longer have a two party system, but a one party system with two factions designed to keep us at odds with each other…”<\/p>\n
So he did, and here is is.<\/p>\n
VOV<\/strong><\/p>\n A regular part of the landscape today is the constant back and forth between Republicans and Democrats and the terms used to define each other. Republicans are often called conservatives, and Democrats are often called liberals when in reality it appears neither party is actually either of those terms anymore if you disregard the rhetoric and look at what happens when they are in a position to govern.<\/p>\n For me those terms liberal and conservative have been bastardized over the years by the two parties as derogatory identifiers that really don\u2019t pair well with the original meanings of those words. There is some change that exists naturally over the course of time as positions evolve but let\u2019s talk about my favorite founder, Thomas Jefferson (Sam Adams comes close for me as well, being that he was a natural rabble rouser) who is often referred to these days as a \u201cclassic liberal\u201d. Why is Jefferson called a classic liberal? The conservatives of his day were the people defending the right of the crown to rule from on high as a god given right. Jefferson\u2019s ideas that people are born with natural rights that no government elected or otherwise has any true authority to restrict or diminish were not at all considered the conventional wisdom of the day and were thus labeled liberal ideas. I\u2019ve written previously about Jefferson\u2019s fascination with the writing of John Locke and the identification of those three very basic human rights of life, liberty, and property. Jefferson\u2019s classic liberalism strongly protects the individual\u2019s right to property and seeks to limit interference in the marketplace, keep church and state separate and out of the markets, and the benefits of a civil society that is responsible for the welfare of the poor and ill. As defined by Jefferson classic liberalism is more akin to libertarianism than to today\u2019s notion of liberal politics.<\/p>\n That said, what does liberal today mean in our current state of identity politics and why is that a myth when discussing the Democrats? Today liberalism is often linked to either socialism when used in a derogatory fashion or linked to progressivism when used in a more friendly definition. We in the United States often associate liberalism with the notion of Medicare for All, Abortion, restriction of gun rights, and a tax code that transfers wealth from the monied classes back into the treasury for distribution to the lower 999 percent of the population in a variety of forms. All of those are used in derogatory fashion by Republicans to identify Democrats.<\/p>\n Democrats often help Republicans by mouthing support for those things, but when elected how do Democrats actually govern?<\/p>\n Bill Clinton moved the party to right of center during the 90s to compete for the centrist votes that had gone to Republicans for the previous 12 years. He had his friend Joe Biden write a crime bill that raised the number of incarcerated black Americans from 3-1 when contrasted to white prisoners to 6-1 by the time he left office. Not a very liberal approach to criminal justice reform by any measure of that term, in fact one might successfully argue that it was a fairly conservative approach to the issue of crime. Clinton also reduced the budget deficit, never reduced the debt but did reduce the deficit. Again not a very tax and spend liberal move.<\/p>\n How about the great liberal Obama? Did he govern as a liberal? He certainly said he would, in order to get progressive Democrats to vote for him he promised a universal health care solution. He promised prison reform, he promised an end to foreign wars, he promised an end to the horrors of Gitmo. Progressives and Centrists so believed the message the gave him a super majority in Congress that reduced Republicans to nothing more than impotent spectators in our government. So what did the liberal Obama do with that super majority? He gave insurance corporations the biggest marketplace gift in the nation, forcing Americans to buy a product or face a financial penalty. It was a very conservative corporate gift. How about his other promises? How liberal did he actually act on those promises? He certainly brought some troops home, but to cover the absence of those troops he increased the use of drones by a factor of ten over the Bush administration\u2019s use of drones. He added three nations that Bush refused to bomb to our nation\u2019s bombing campaign effectively increasing by 75% the number of nations being actively bombed. He never closed Gitmo. He helped the Saudis attack Yemen. What part of this is liberal? By what definition are these liberal acts?<\/p>\n When we distill away the rhetoric and look at what actually happened there is no evidence that Obama was anything but a right of center corporate hack as president. Should you doubt just how much of a friend to the one percent that Obama was even the Wall Street Journal wrote a few op-eds describing how much the one percent benefitted during his presidency while the middle class stagnated and the bottom half of wage earners actually lost wealth during the Obama years\u2026.so much for liberal wealth transfers.<\/p>\n And that brings us to 2020 where we see the DNC actively working against the only liberal they had in the field. So active were they in their efforts it almost appears as if the Democrats would rather lose with a weak, right of center, early onset dementia patient than try and win with an actual progressive liberal. The Democratic Party as it exists today is anything but liberal, it is a weak and ineffectual right of center Republican lite party at the moment. It is completely beholden to corporate money and corporate interests.<\/p>\n They talk a good game to try and keep their progressive wing in the fold and with the Vote Blue No Matter Who crowd they try and shame those progressives into voting for a turd like Biden. Add in the current national unrest and one might be witnessing a Tea Party like moment on the Democrat side where progressives finally make a play for some true voice in their supposedly liberal party. We\u2019ll see how it all plays out, but after the 2016 loss what we saw was the DNC actively purging all liberal progressives from leadership positions in the party.<\/p>\n Why does this matter? Why do we care that the wrong labels are applied to our parties? That\u2019s a topic for another essay certainly, but in short it\u2019s to make certain that the two parties appear to have some actual separation. Thus the focus on abortion, gun control, and gay rights. It gives single issue voters something to easily identify with because most American voters are so apathetic they vote based on likability rather than voting on any actual platform ideas.<\/p>\n As always thanks for considering my thoughts. I welcome your contrary opinions and look forward to hearing from you. He also thanks all of you Delta Whiskies and Whiskettes for the kind words and support during the family’s coronavirus loss, and says how it all was well received by family and friends.<\/p>\n Another thought provoker. Thanks, VOV.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nVOV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n