House of Eratosthenes

I was a Democrat because while it was clear to me that the Republican politicians were out of touch and cared for only the upper class, Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt cared for the masses and helping the working man…By and large, none of these values are represented in the Democratic Party today.

From where I’m standing, the party has largely abandoned its commitment to civil rights and instead allows race-baiters to be national power brokers. As spokesman for the Boys and Girls Clubs of New Jersey, I am hurt that there is not one Democrat in Washington who cares enough about the great inner cities of this country to help those in dire distress from poverty and crime. These cities are in worse shape than those countries from which all those illegal ‘children’ crossing our borders daily are coming…

Most disheartening, though, is the Democrats’ weak commitment to a strong defense and maintaining America’s place in the world as the only superpower. All I see is an American foreign policy led by a Democratic administration that is floundering when it comes to things like dealing with Iraq, Russia and Syria, inept when it comes to crises like Benghazi, and weak at the knees when it comes to protecting our strongest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.

It’s a fool’s-errand to go searching for a political party that “cares more.” The great tragedy of our times is the story of the “independent,” like Piscopo, who embarks on such an endless and fruitless errand and, dissatisfied with the results, eventually announces his new wisdom that “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” and counsels everyone within earshot to systematically vote out whoever the incumbents are, now until the sun goes nova, or until there is some major reform in the system, whichever comes first.

That’s where this is going, and it’s sad because the message never gets sent of — no, we are rejecting personality politics, cult politics, faction politics. Even when the electorate is thoroughly ready to send such a message. And, that’s where the split is; “Should the resources and the authority of the state be used to target classes of people, and burden them with special obligations, elevating other targeted classes with special immunities and privileges.” The question is something like that. Which side “cares more”? Pffft. They’re politicians. Neither one cares more, neither one is supposed to care more, so don’t go acting like you’ve achieved some special epiphany when you figure that one out.

But, leaving the democrat party is a great first step to the growing-up that needs to happen.

Rhetorical question; Who wins elections? Answer; the candidate with the most votes.

Statement of political philosophy: The primary goal of the almost all politicians is to win re-election. To do this they must appeal to a broad enough constituency to achieve at least 51% of the votes.

Political observation: A politician who runs in support of the poor, the disadvantaged, or the oppressed has a vested interest in making sure that the majority of the voters in his/her district are poor, disadvantaged and feel oppressed. Otherwise they will vote for someone else. So, he/she will provide just enough “help” to those that vote for him/her to make them feel that “he cares” but not enough to allow them to not be poor, disadvantaged or feel oppressed which would encourage them to vote for someone else.

Conclusion based upon the above observation: The poor should NEVER vote for someone that claims to represent their interest. because at best they will become wards of a benevolent state but will probably just find the militarized police shooting at them. After all, the politician that represents the poor and oppressed needs their vote.
- Fai.Mao | 08/19/2014 @ 16:18
Excellent analysis. Reminds me of something, a book within a book:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other…The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim — for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives — is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters. [emphasis mine]
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2014 @ 18:59

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

PiscopoTuesday, August 19th, 2014

Piscopo
Tuesday, August 19th, 2014