Why the Democrat Left Fails America

On the heels of the 2018 mid-term elections I have read posts here that wax nostalgic about the '60's and echo the hyperbole of that era. It is not just Writer Beat that offers these idealistic remembrances and naive proclamations, they are found all over the Media and here is why these nice sounding platitudes and grandiose patronizations, resurrected on the 6 o'clock news and all over social media fail as a philosophy for our nation.


The 1960's rallied the commendable but impractical movements of a 'perfect world'. Matters of war, race, gender, poverty, etc. were catapulted to the forefront of the popular consciousness. Gurus of many stripes touted mysticism and drugs, not to mention progressive politics as the answer to the presumed corrupt and misapplied Western world of Christianity and European (sic) culture. The problem from the outset was the radical misperception of these issues at their core and in the context of reality. When you mixed this circumstance with the naivete of youth, the cynicism of pundits, and factored in the effect of carnal licenses in sex, drugs and the rock and rolling of politics the outcome was predictable at the time and transparent in retrospect.



Who isn't for a world without war? In the cataclysm of Viet Nam there was no hardsell necessary to gather the believer and the folk-rock, non-stop protest fanned the flames of fanatical peaceniks. The problem then and now is the willful denial that to achieve world peace a la the '60's you need to do one of two things: convince all the people of the world to put down their arms and forswear against a return to war as a social/political device or get ourselves a supercop. Too few among us ever entertained the simple question, What one thing can anyone name that ALL humans agree upon and commit themselves to? War will always be an option that some are willing to employ.


This brings us to the second alternative, an overarching, all powerful, benevolent body with irresistible power to compel peace on a planetary scale. Presumably this body would wield power so terrible that the mere thought of contrary exercise of force would be unthinkable. Again the question, Who do YOU trust enough to empower with such in confidence that it would not be turned to corrupt purposes. No, the answer remains we need to continue our involvement in war until the messiah remedy comes to Earth. At one time our effort must be towards alternatives to violence AND committing ourselves to prosecuting with the greatest prejudice, in the most terrible fashion wars of necessity. 5, 10, 20 years of slow carnage is not the 'better war'.



Again, the simple question that searches for the example of equality in practice defies an answer. The world is rife with prejudices and phobias that should cause us to look more closely at why these are the universals in human behavior. Our best strategy is to find how these contribute to our sense of security, belonging and balance in nature and then work on formulating, again a balance of the human need to bind to the familiar and the human failing of taking things too far. A good place to begin is this nonsense that we are all the same. Bad science data such as the oft proffered deceit that among human DNA a mere 1%, or less separates us from the 99%, or more that unites us. This spurious claim denies the immense complexity of humans while at the same time ignores that we ARE still a part of Nature and like all other living beings on Earth survive because of our prejudices.


The racists and gender defenders like to sift through history to find the examples of 'man's inhumanity to man' and to trot out the paradox of power throttling between the sexes and races in so called enlightened societies but what is skipped over is the why of civilizations evolved with these discrepancies. There's a widely understood case of the weekend mechanic who upon reassembly of a project is left with 'extra parts' that could not find a place in it when what was taken apart is put together. If you know the purpose of those parts you are more than half way to figuring where they go. WE need to understand why those historical practices that offend our Liberal senses of justice today existed in the first place before we hit the road with a rebuilt society only to see the wheels fall off.




Here is the one issue that in many ways sheds the light for all the others. Of course poverty is problematic but can there be any question of the wrong-headedness of putting some government in charge of parcelling out the wealth? Can there be any DOUBT that at least one messiah got it right when he taught, '... give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for his life,'? The crux of that wisdom is not the teaching so much as the presumption that it is for every man to do for himself. With that starting point we have enlisted, so far as we can garner consensus, the efforts, energy and ingenuity of all among us. There is where we begin to create self sufficiency that prevents poverty.


On the matter of charity there is this. Charity is for the giver not those who receive. Why? Because to depend on charity is a disease that has no cure. It is a contagious addiction that passes to future generations and increases in its damage to the practitioners and those who seek to remedy. To enshrine entitlement in law and fund it with other people's wealth by force is no solution. Nothing so illustrates the folly of this as does the notion that there is work some people just won't do despite that they cannot otherwise feed and clothe themselves offered as justification for redistribution. The notion that anyone is entitled to particular quality of gainful employment, let alone standard of living is the enemy of a people who are incented to exercise themselves towards success in life as part of a nation. In a word, it is the prescription for a nation of dependents. The corollary that 'we are each other's brothers' is more of this dangerous silliness as charity is best left to those who choose to supply it.


This leaves us with the givers. Should we be charitable? Is a nation obligated to those less fortunate or those who through no fault of their own find themselves in dire straits? Of course, but this is a self serving philanthropy that protects society from wreckage and ruin and not a roadmap for a path forward. The answer is that we must rise to help each other but recognize when enough help is enough. The measure must always be against moving each other to step up to their own responsibility.


Pablo Picasso, the artist and not Bobby Kennedy the politician noted, 'Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not.' When we take into account the ramifications of an artist letting fly and a politician leveraging idealism for your vote we should come up with some cynicism over the import of either. Children of the '60's and the Liberal, Left, Democrats of the 21st Century are not of this school and prefer to play on OUR sympathies to gather power unto themselves that will come at the cost of our Freedom. It is for us to take heed and remain true to ourselves.


Disclaimer: I am a child of the '60's, a hippy, and a lifelong conservative. My opinions come from personal observations and more than 50 years of testing the theories. My conclusions are that in life, if you want it done right, do it yourself and less government is better government.


Susitna Added Nov 7, 2018 - 5:41pm
To Other CA: I will have to analyze every single part in a quiet moment and check little by little how I am doing so far regarding all the different aspects that you have addressed. But I can tell you that your message hit me in a refreshing way because I was falling into endless discussions without fully understanding what was going on in certain people's minds. Your article arrives at the right moment and in the right space. I believe that we all needed someone to shake the tree so that the apples can finally be harvested. A great article and most of all a great contribution during a very difficult time. 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Nov 7, 2018 - 6:09pm
Idealism is a heresy. Idealists never think before the goal. They have no real world experience of cause and effect and are quite blind---they are not blind--but willfully ignorant; they don't care. Was it Lenin or Trotsky who said, "In order to make an omelette, a few eggs have to be broken". They never see the ruin they cause, only so far as the pie-in-the-sky is realized. They are at forever war with reality. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Nov 7, 2018 - 7:02pm
I think that most on the left side of politics misunderstand the human condition. (And may not realize it but are often dishonest to the core.)
Case in point, when the Benghazi happened, Hillary came forward with the youtube video being the cause. The was completely dishonest of course, but in the immediate aftermath they sought only to cover their backsides. You had a dead U.S. Ambassador and a military debacle and for the first few days, only wanted to talk about a youtube video. Why the deceit? (And no, I don't think Hillary sees herself as a bad person--whisper: nobody thinks they are a bad person.) 
I think most people see the world as they want it to be. People on the Left believe human beings are all good at heart and create policies based on this assumption. But it's not true of course. 
Human beings have some good and some bad. And can be enticed to exercise either of these natures by outside forces. And we have government policies foolishly designed to entice poor people to be dishonest and lazy. So they are. 
(Note: I see purposely having kids out of wedlock for a government check as dishonest. Sending away your common law husband, father of your kids, for the dependable government check is wrong. It's dishonest. The list goes on of incentives for bad behavior.)
opher goodwin Added Nov 7, 2018 - 7:07pm
No - we don't need a hugely powerful body wielding great force. We need a global body based on a sound agreed moral basis able to utilise trade and sanctions in order to stabilise the world and bring an end to war, poverty, environmental disaster and exploitation.
We have one. It is called the UN. It needs to be supported better.
The alternative is more of the same with criminals, globalists and the wealthy abusing us and the planet.
opher goodwin Added Nov 7, 2018 - 7:08pm
Cullen - most human being are good at heart. The minority have to be controlled and prevented from gaining power. Unfortunately we keep electing them.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 7, 2018 - 7:11pm
No, of course "the Other" is another baaaaad Tribe....good white people are another Tribe and deserving of special treatment while that Other tribe is diminished and hurt, making them suffer. Perhaps the demand of laws making sure fathers aren't in the home in order to get help, are problematic, helping to make it worse.  Once again, that tribe of "the Other" should rightfully be hurt, making "OUR" tribe "better," their tribe damaged.  We win tribal war!!!  Yeaaaah!!!  Morons.
Autumn Cote Added Nov 7, 2018 - 11:14pm
Please note, unless you comment on the work of others, it's against the rules to post articles here.  So long as you follow the rules, many thanks for your participation with Writer Beat!
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Nov 8, 2018 - 2:22am
When you a visitor in the office and they say, "We're from the government, and we're just here to help."  RUN. 
Flying Junior Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:59am
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for his life,'
I don't doubt that you may have heard this proverb in church.  But I am pretty sure it was not the Christ who said these words.
It is a definite improvement upon the arcane and irrelevant proverbs of Solomon.
Yeah man.   Your whole thing is incredibly antiquated thinking.  I find it fascinating that this has survived for so long.  I have never heard any of this from a pastor who was born later than 1920.  You are a true revivalist.  Congratulations for being fifty years behind the times.
If you were a hippie, you must not have been a very fun hippie to hang out with.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 8, 2018 - 4:34am
 Is an argument we live in the best of times and the worse of times and these times are the best, as many a friend who pined for the good old days are now dead because of the free access to drug and sex it had accorded them?  Alternatively, these are the worse of times for those whose indulgence in the good old days of free love, drugs, and sex have them addicted to same--producing whores, junkies, and winos?
Susitna Added Nov 8, 2018 - 4:47am
To Dr. Green: Oh boy, oh boy! You are like clear cool water on a sunny day. I fully agree with you!
George N Romey Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:19am
People want to think of the 60s as this anti war movement but  most of it was drugs, sex and pissing off the older generation.  Not surprisingly that generation then brought us about this "globalization" that has destroyed the lives of many while still keeping the poor, poor.  
Human beings are not inherently "good or bad."  Thousands of years show we have a multitude of emotional ranges.  Too much government will never be a good thing because you see the same abuses occurring with large multinational corporations.  Power corrupts whether in the private or public sector.  
Global government is nothing more than a path to world slavery.  It will be fantastically great for the top 10% and not so much for the other 90%.  The lower 50% would be nothing more than slaves, as they almost already are.  
Autumn Cote Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:21pm
Why did you just post another article to the site? 
Jim Stoner Added Nov 8, 2018 - 6:01pm
I think the "give a man a fish..." quote is from Lao Tsu, the Chinese philosopher--for me, his aphoristic writings define wisdom. 
War is too high a price to pay; diplomacy is the way to go.  Most wars between nations can be avoided.   The UN is a fairly weak organization, but it helps to reduce the incidence of war.  In that regard, there has been true progress since WWII.  
I still believe in the ultimate value of the great experiment we call human civilization.  We have made enormous strides in the quality of life for most people in the past 150 years.   The next step is for all to recognize what we have, defend what is good, and begin to proceed to the next stage in our social evolution.   The Trumpian zero-sum, ultra-nationalist, nativist, egoist approach is not it; it's a false direction, and one that I believe will be universally rejected--soon. 
The alternative to progress and quality of all human life is not worth consideration. 
Mogg Tsur Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:06pm
RE: Jim Stoner - Far be it from me to discourage starry eyed optimism, just don't ask me to lay the fate of the United States of America in the hands of those who think in a given confrontation with a belligerent aggressor that we should strive for negotiation in the absence of a defense with arms. Like so many of your ilk your argument against war rests in the notion that we can negotiate with a determined enemy. Further, you skip over completely the part paramilitary, non-state (read: ISIS, etc.) aggressors have come to play in precipitating war. Finally, you pretend that these self same instigators are not all too common place in America among our own people.
Your kind would do well to consider:
a. If America were to forgo our immense nuclear advantage and revert to 'conventional' means of defense WE would be lowering the bar for aggressors and INVITING war.
b. The notion that most wars can be avoided is a rhetorical folly that begs debate. To suggest that wars are waged on whims ignores the complexities and depth of issues that precipitate war.
c. To cite the effect of the United Nations and other international bodies as the source of progress towards peace has, at the least to go hand in hand with the value of a potential for crushing defeat from the military powerhouses among nations who have turned their arsenals into political cache.
d. The problem with '... for all to agree' is that it only takes one to betray his consent, refuse to comply, or change his mind over the 'agreement not to war' and we are right back where we started. Moreover this reality demands that we maintain means of defense which, in turn sets the stage for turning weapons of defense to use in acts of aggression. 
In a final act of disappointing capitulation to pap you lay the trouble of war at the doorstep of Donald Trump, our President today. You expose your prejudice that presumably lies in objection to his hairstyle, the size of his hands, and his rough manner of speech. Never mind the history of war, the predictable future of war, and the intrinsic uniqueness of war as an expression of our species.
As you can see, I doubt mankind's capacity for the foreseeable future to end war but in any event such monumental advance in the philosophy and culture of humankind won't come from political backbiting and petty rivalries based on the departure from a norm derived of habit by an individual who dares to upset the apple cart of complacency. You say, 'The next step is for all to recognize what we have, defend what is good, and begin to proceed to the next stage in our social evolution.' but before that you need to raise the awareness ... for all of what is 'good', instill a conviction sufficient to stand, even at cost against the objectors, and convince all that YOUR vision of evolution is the one they hold. Good luck!