Three Things You Have to Understand About Today's Democratic Party

By Skanderbeg Posted in Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

This has been rattling around in the carnival ride that passes for my mind since the beginning of the year, and it seems that it's worth putting it all down on "paper" for discussion....

1

It is impossible to overstate the psychological rictus grip that the ghost of John F. Kennedy has on Democrats. He projected all that they want to be and have - charisma, youth, vigor, eloquence, etc. (Note that he projected these things, but even though the now-known truth turns out to have been much different.... the self-serving fantasy lives on.) And they've been searching for the "next" JFK ever since then.... and this has naturally spawned a whole range of pretenders desperate to fill the "messiah" slot. Anyone old enough to remember the bizarre 1984 Presidential campaign of Gary Hart (remember him?) will recall that former Senator Hart even took to clearly mimicking JFK's mannerisms, right down to patting back the hair on his temples with the flats of his hands.

2

Democrats haven't had a new idea since about 1965. Note that I said "new" rather than "good." Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" was about the last novelty - since then, it's all been the same-old same-old with continually-updated packaging.

3

Democrats more-or-less figured that out around 1980, after the brutal and unexpected trouncing they took in that year's Presidential election. Since then, the main name of the game has been to find the best spokes-face to put on the same-old same-old as a marketing strategy (see 1 above.) (N.b. - Keep in mind that these people really DO believe that Ronald Reagan was a genteel bonehead who succeeded simply by "superior communications skills.") So the search-and-wait for the Messiah continues.

On that last (which was on my mind long before January), this might be the real reason that Hillary had that famous choke-up moment in New Hampshire - and why it might have been genuine. Typical of the "Woodstock generation," she is only capable of crying for herself - and here she was finally getting her turn to be the "marketing face" when along comes this upstart who is better at it and was going to steal her "turn."


While we're at it, we might as well delve a bit deeper into the mind of the Woodstocker.

Our younger readers can count themselves lucky that they never had to battle against that crew when they were in their prime - and to have to battle them from a position of youth and weakness. You can't understand that "68er" generation without grasping that they are a different animal - they are completely, totally self-absorbed and self-centered, and everything they touch plays out as an external form of their own internal psychodramas.

When President Bill came along, he seemed in many ways less an individual and more along the lines of one of those "composite psyche-based creatures" - literary examples of which I'm sure our more science-fiction-oriented readership can provide. Bill seemed like the synthetic reflection of a generation - a generation which always had a ridiculously high opinion of itself. When they looked at Bill, they were looking into a mirror at themselves - and they found that they didn't like what they saw. After years of self-congratulation for their own perceived high-mindedness, moral perfection, and self-image as the chosen children of history.... they looked in the "mirror" and saw their true selves of greed, petulance, self-indulgence, arrogant brutality toward others, and moral failure. So the rest of us got to be bystanders while a generation argued amongst itself about how to justify protecting their own disasters from reality.

So, try this on for size. The real Hillary-Barack conflict is yet another (and hopefully the last) playing-out of 68er psychodrama. This is a conflict between their fantasies and their realities. Hillary is 68er generational reality - the "forever young" generation is now north of 60, doesn't have much to show for it all, and can only make grubby appeals to sticking together and retaining the power that they always craved. Meanwhile, Barack (though much younger) strangely appeals to the fantasies of the 68ers - that they are FOREVER young and energetic and bubbly and charismatic.

The fantasy that they could be young, hip, and "progressive" for all eternity has collided with the reality that they're grayed, clapped-out, and past-expiry. How that psychodrama conflict plays out will explain a great deal about how things unfold on the other side over the next few months....

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Yes, indeed. For all their talk of inclusion and diversity, they are really all three years old and demanding that they want yo-yo and they want it now.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

...in a film review by James Bowman (Among the Mad Simpletons, p. 78), there's this:

...[P]residential elections in which there is someone named Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket -- of which, at the time of writing, it looks as if the next one will be -- are also referenda on the 1960s. The pleasing outlines of that decade as observed through a haze of marijuana fug, like the distant sounds of angrily protesting youths so beloved of the media, have an undeniable power to bewitch, though I am not among those who believe it so powerful as to make the election's outcome a foregone conclusion. The allure is today as it was for those protesters of old, and for the various folkish and rock 'n' roll crooners who flattered them, namely the seductive charm of the easy answer. "All you need is love", warbled the Beatles, and millions of dope-addled morons slapped their foreheads and said, "Of course! No more thinking for me!"

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

*Snicker* Thanks; that's pretty good. I haven't seen that but parts of it sound familiar so perhaps it's been quoted elsewhere.

It will be great to shovel that generation off the stage and be done with their endless self-obsessed psychodramas....

It always seemed to me that today's Democratic Party is the emotional response to the electoral drubbings received at the hands of Nixon and Reagan.

When it became clear that a lot of their former strongholds and loaded up and moved, they had to look around and see what was left. They found a number of grievance groups of varying sizes. When they determined that grievance groups were fertile ground for their politics of envy, they started casting about for more and creating them where they could. This has gotten them to about 50% of the electorate, but it has left them critically short of ideas and also (apparently) critically short of leaders capable of having ideas with more substance than "hope" or the latest grievance.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

The real Hillary-Barack conflict is yet another (and hopefully the last) playing-out of 68er psychodrama. This is a conflict between their fantasies and their realities. Hillary is 68er generational reality ... Meanwhile, Barack (though much younger) strangely appeals to the fantasies of the 68ers - that they are FOREVER young and energetic and bubbly and charismatic.

No, I think the true 60's refugees (those who look back on that time as the glory days for themselves and American society) share Clinton's view that Obama is usurping what is rightfully theirs. For them, Obama negates their self-image as the eternal "wave of the future". An Obama victory tells the 60's refugee's "You're so yesterday. Get out of the way, and go watch some has-been 60's musicians on a PBS pledge break."

I looked at white voters divided by age group in several Democratic primary polls, linked from CNN's Election Central. Notable is that Obama's support among whites drops sharply 10 or more points in the 60+ age group. For example in closely contested Missouri, Obama's vote among whites was:

White 18-29 57%
White 30-44 43%
White 45-59 40%
White 60 and Older 28%

 

There's a conflict between my brain and my gut on Obama vs. Clinton. Rationally I favor Clinton for the nomination because (1) I think she's more likely to lose the general election than Obama, and (2) if the Democrat does win the general election, I think Clinton would be a little less damaging to America than Obama would. However I find Clinton a really loathsome individual, who inspires an intense personal dislike I don't feel toward Obama.

The pleasure you might get from somebody else's unhappiness is a very stupid basis for making choices. Just the same, I must admit I get a feeling of satisfaction thinking about the burning resentment Hillary is feeling toward Obama now, as she sees the nomination slipping from her grasp. Think about what must be going through her mind: "That insolent young punk is going to deny me what I'm entitled to! After all those years cleaning up after Bill's bimbo eruptions, haven't I earned the right to be President? And to think it's a black man that's treating me this way! After all Bill and I have done for those people, this is the thanks we get??"

I've been saying this for a while that the press has missed the real story in the Democratic primary (and what will be the story in the election if Obama wins the primary). The real divide is not the racical or sexual lines but generational - the 60s generation has had power for 16 years (while the generation that fought WWII had 32 years) and Obama repesents the end of that.

Personally, I think that would be great as it would put some of the intra-generational conflict behind us and let us argue over more meaningful disagreements than Vietnam.

No, I think the true 60's refugees (those who look back on that time as the glory days for themselves and American society) share Clinton's view that Obama is usurping what is rightfully theirs. For them, Obama negates their self-image as the eternal "wave of the future".

Actually, I agree with you - when they actually get around to having to make the decision.

There is however (leading up to having to go to a polling booth and actually make a decision) a lot of conflicted self-image psychodrama. The internal self-argument is to stick with the reality of one of their own (Hillary), or cave in to the fantasy of permanent association with all that is "young, hip, and progressive."

This is something of a spectator sport - watching people argue with themselves. That may be the main "drama" that has accidentally been spawned by Senator Obama's candidacy.

Most of that will break for Hillary. But as a counter-example, watch the Vermont primary on March 4th. Vermont is chock full of nostalgic 68ers who never grew up. They should be a natural Hillary constitutency on "Woodstock generation solidarity" grounds. But expect Obama to do very well in Vermont, even though the state is quickly becoming a very large open-air assisted living facility (as Tom Friedman said of Europe).

Yes it will be interesting to see how Vermont's Democratic primary goes. I doubt your prediction of Hillary doing well among the Depends-wearing hippies, but who knows and it will be amusing to watch the melodrama.

I haven't looked at real statistics, but my impression from brief visits to Vermont is of a refugee camp for people having a hard time accepting the 60's are in the past. Not quite the time-warp experience of a walk down Berkeley's Telegraph Ave, but close.

My expectation of that demographic is the opposite of yours. If a higher proportion people in the late 50's to 60's age group fit the "60's refugee" profile in Vermont, I'd expect the difference between age groups to be even sharper there: old Democrats being ever more loyal to the 60's than in other states, thus voting more heavily for Clinton; and younger Democrats voting more heavily for Obama because they've had to put up with more of those old farts who still consider themselves "the future."

One thing we republicans/conservatives should learn from this is to not pine for a "second coming." Many of us want the "next" Reagan, which is understandable becaus he was great. What I contend we should look for is someone who is not the "next" Reagan, but someone who can build upon that & learn from successes & mistakes.

The democrats are close to splitting several different ways. Generational for sure, however we can't count out the skin color v. sex aspects - this dynamic is playing a huge role in the current turmoil with the democrats.

I was at the Massachusetts Republican Convention when we nominated Mitt for governor and watched him as he won that race in an ultra-liberal state with a legislature that is 85% Democrat Socialists...no small feat to be sure. As I watched (and helped too little, too late) him run for the presidency I was struck by how he and his wonderful family often seemed, ironically, out of place in today’s America, in so many ways. They were (and are) so reminiscent of JFK and his family when they became the first family.

I was in my high school history class that day, ironically, in 1963 when JFK was assassinated. I remember Donny Wilkinson running up and down the corridors yelling something about the president. I remember crying as I made the 20 minute walk home (yes kids, we used to WALK). And, most of all, I vividly remember the look on my mother’s face when I told her the unbelievable news. In many ways, I got the same kind of sinking feeling when Mitt Romney dropped out of this race recently, in what already seems like an eternity.

Although I had no clue all those years ago as to why it happened, I have, over the years, been slowly piecing together the puzzle. I strongly believe that JFK’s assassination was the first step as part of the grand scheme by the Communists to slowly and incrementally take over the United States of America from within. Just as Soviet Dictator, Nikita Khruschev predicted so long ago with his infamous, “We will bury you” rant, it IS and has been happening right under our noses.

When LBJ took over in 1964 everything began to change dramatically, and for the worse. From the “War On Poverty” and “The Immigration Reform Act of 1965" to removing prayer from schools, Roe V. Wade and gay rights, all the way up to the present day, “Liberals” have succeeded in stripping away, one by one, the soul, core, and foundation of everything that made America unique, strong, great and unified.

Under the guise of “Liberalism”, over the years the Democrat/Socialist/Communist Party of America has ushered in the creation and acceptance of the drug culture, cultural “diversity”, broken families, fetus killing (aka: abortion), gay marriage, cohabitation, Godlessness, obscenity over the public airwaves, disrespect for fellow men, low self-esteem, out of control lawsuits, government dependency, and even the acceptance of obesity (been to a Walmart lately?), to name just a few. To call this horrific cancer by any other name is delusional. If it walks like a Liberal Democrat and talks like a Liberal Democrat, it IS a Socialist/Communist, period!

And now with nearly ALL of the main stream media and billionaire foreigners like George Soros, fully and openly supporting and promoting this destructive agenda, the Conservative movement is quickly being backed into a corner and "they" are moving in for the slow, torturous kill.

There are only TWO counters left to stop this radical political tsunami that is threatening our very freedom and way of life. They are conservative talk radio and the internet. If either Hillary Clinton(s) (who has Marxist roots) or B. Hussein Obama (at best a Socialist) win the presidency in November, they will quickly move to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”as the first step toward dismantlement of conservative talk radio. That will leave the internet. With companies like www.google.com ( have already bowed down to Communist China’s pressure there) controlling an ever growing segment of what goes online and what doesn’t, it will not be that difficult for the Socialist/Communists to tailor it to their agenda here. And once that happens, ladies and gentlemen, it will be all over but the crying.

A HERE AND NOW EXAMPLE:

THIS bill is coming up THIS WEEK, is VERY dangerous and has to be STOPPED. It is sponsored by Barack Hussein Obama and basically amounts to turning over United States sovereignty to, of all things, the United Nations!
This bill is sponsored by many of the biggest Socialists in Congress, including Feinstein, Hagel, yes, OBAMA! Here's an article pertaining to it: http://pencilnub.com/2008/02/15/barack-obama-is-bad-for-america/

Just one example of what will happpen if this thing is implemented is that our gas prices at the pump will go up 35 cents per DOLLAR paid IMMEDIATELY! It will also allow the UN to LEGALLY dictate to US arms control (kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye).

Here's a good site to start with to get up to speed on it:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Call senators and let them know to STOP this outrageous Bill THIS COMING WEEK!!! PLEASE S P R E A D THE WORD!!!

You've already posted this twice. Don't post it again.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Now these numbnuts of the sixties are in their sixties ruling education at all levels from the elite colleges and universities to kindergarten. They also rule in Congress, the Senate and on occasion as POTUS.

They authored the books, authorised the books and the students are being taught by the kooks who embrace Socialism and the Robin Hood Syndrome. They are blind to the fact that Europe is abolishing their Socialist governance, a miserable failure, for capitalism.

Any person who claims to be a liberal Democrat has been brainwashed by these teachers, professors and the professional, political parasites in Washington, D.C.

One last, but very important, bit of legislation during the sixties was the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society by LBJ. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the pivotal reason this legislation happened.

Had he not been assassinated he could have continued to bring the blacks out of poverty into the role of educated, productive American citizens.

The black people who took his place allowed MLK, Jr.'s dream die on the vine and not without help from the Democratic Party which continues to keep the blacks in poverty, on the dole and do not give a rat's @$$ about anything except power.

"Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service