Democrats are the Reason to Vote for Republicans

Republicans have a significant altruist/collectivist element in their thinking, but at least that element is tempered by an element of reason/individualism. Democrats don’t have the element of reason/individualism. They speak incessantly of altruism (‘other’-ism etymologically), sacrifice, “shared prosperity,” and ‘coming together’. Moreover, even when they think they are being individualist, they are still being collectivist.

In his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention yesterday, Julian Castro spoke repeatedly of the government “investing”—in “opportunity,” in “a workforce,” in “our young minds,” in “people,” in “our shared prosperity”—thereby denying the reasoning ability and the right of individuals to invest their own capital.

The least collectivist element of Michelle Obama’s speech yesterday was about working hard; but the message in essence was that “if you work hard and do what you’re supposed to do”—and Mrs. Obama used personal examples of manual laborers, not productive thinkers—we in government will take from others to give you even more than you have earned. Her premise is essentially Marx’s labor theory of value—the view that the value of a product is the amount of physical labor that was used to make it—denying individual rights and the role of the individual, rational mind in production.

5 thoughts on “Democrats are the Reason to Vote for Republicans

  1. Well observed and well said. I believe there is absolutely no hope for the Democratic Party. It is now openly and consistently the party of full collectivism, from fundamental premises to policy proposals.

  2. Yes, I’ve seen quite enough. Malice oozes from their, the Democrats’, pores.

    As I remarked on the DON’T LET IT GO site: I never, EVER thought I’d ever be advocating for a band of (professedly) religious (professed) anti-abortionists—-but here I am, so advocating. I think the major and most important difference between the two parties consists in the degree of their integrity. The Republicans seem to have almost none whatsoever—-while the Democrats are totally sincere.

    I believe we should take our chances with the phonies. I certainly will be.

  3. I should have added the following to my post. I support Republicans in Congress over Democrats, but I am still not convinced about supporting Romney-Ryan. Some Republicans are somewhat effective in opposing Democrats, but Republicans are at their worst–evidently because of loyalty to the party–under a welfare-statist Republican president. Again, if Republicans in Congress would treat Romney like a Democrat, then I would support Romney.

  4. You’re referring to the “gridlock” phenomenon (and/or–with your usual careful reasoning–a sort of variant thereof). I’m all for it as a method of incapacitating a menacing government. But I don’t see how it’s to be “arranged,” and maintained across time. One simply can’t “know” what Congress will consist of, from one election to the next, and so one can hardly depend upon it as a reliable means of self defense. The Democrats are now showing themselves to be menaces almost beyond reckoning, and it’s quite nearly impossible to sanction ANY of their lot, regardless of the advantages of potential gridlock.

    And per your condition of supporting Romney: now that the Democrats are so flaunting their unbridled evil, I hardly suppose that Republicans will be predisposed to any serious, principled opposition of their own party leader–knowing what the “alternative” is; if that makes sense…. So that gambit can by no means be depended upon, either.

    Bottom line: I think, when you’re staring such utter evil in the face, you simply need to banish it–and then take on the next enemy, in order, as it appears. (In addition, don’t forget there’s still the Judicial Branch to be reckoned with–and the looming appointments thereto.)

  5. And here’s another point worth considering…. If our aim should be to incapacitate a menacing government and so “buy time” (which I certainly think it should be), then, simply the transfer of (executive) power is, in and of itself, of some value in achieving this end—as it forces a break in the stride of the bureaucracy. Everything is (more or less) new, all over again. Lots of new bodies have to start learning new ropes. (Hell, they even need new drapes and art work for the White House; and new china, I expect.) That brings the bureaucracy to a crawl, for some period of time—which period, might prove exceedingly valuable and, however short, is in the current case certainly better than allowing the existing Obama-ist bureaucracy to coast along and capitalize upon its momentum.

    (I realize now that this is the reason that I have long thought that a handy rule of thumb to follow is: “If they’re IN office—vote them out—regardless.”)

    ….. Worthy of consideration? I think so.

Comments are closed.