Dining With Liberals
To My Fellow Guests, George W. Bush Is A Christian Extremist Who Is Out Of Touch With Mainstream America. Expectedly, Grace Was Not Said Before Dinner.
Part Two of Two
By Perry Hicks
Saying grace would have been a religious act and while these people are certainly cultured and congenial, religious, at least in a strict Christian sense, they were not. They are liberal - and Christianity is anathema to some of their most fundamental convictions: feminism, gay rights, abortion on demand, expansive children’s rights (read diminished parental rights), dislike for marriage (unless it is gay), and an animosity for Republicans.
For example, everyone present, save me, seethed at how Bush “stole” the election. I pointed out that it was a Democrat that designed the voting form, the districts in question were run by Democrats, and the “disenfranchised” voters simply did not insure that their voting card holes were correctly punched. Besides, the popular vote elects no one. It is the Electoral College that decides who will be the president. Bush stole nothing.
The entire group fell silent when I followed up my comment with a question: If the tables were turned, would you support a Bush win based on hanging chads? Of course they wouldn’t. Neither did they want to count many of the absentee military votes because the envelopes were either not postmarked, or not postmarked in a timely manner. They didn’t want to count those votes because the military cannot be trusted to vote Democrat.
[Note: military posts may not be marked or marked in a timely fashion due to a variety of reasons, including ships being at sea. Also, as many as 7 Florida recounts proved Bush did win the popular vote- less the hanging chads- by a narrow margin.]
Just as oblivious to my dinner-mates was the question of Democrat voting behavior. In St. Louis, for example, polls in largely Democrat voting districts were allegedly held open in order to facilitate garnering more Democrat votes. A voting machine was found abandoned in an alley raising fears that someone had been punching bogus voting cards. Then, there were also claims that many Democrat voters were just as allegedly dead. Who was trying to steal what?
This phenomenon of selective memory I often attribute to what I call “Team Politics”. The Democrats take it to an art form but the Republicans can be guilty of it, too. That is why I do not belong to a political party. Thus, when my fellow guests inquired into my affiliation, I told them I was not a Republican: I told them I didn’t vote for Bush and I half-joked by saying that when it comes to politicians, “I hate them all”. Strangely, this mollified them.
Or perhaps not so strangely, because this was not a happy lot: On many issues they are consumed with a level of hatred they claim to be the sole purview of the Jerry Falwell wing of the Republican Party.
Of course, this attachment of bigotry to the Christian Right doesn’t explain the Democrat’s growing distain for Jews. Perhaps, it is because they perceive a growing number of Jews are defecting to the Republican Party; locking arms with the “intolerant” Christians and singing Cum Ba Yah.
Beginning with Hillary Clinton kissing Yasser Arafat’s wife and pushing for an independent Palestinian state, an increasing number of Jews do feel uneasy with at least the Democrat leadership. The Democrat’s distain for the Bush War (on Terror), and the shabby treatment Joe Lieberman has gotten from Al Gore, has furthered this sense of alienation.
It’s All About the Clintons
Al Gore didn’t step out from the shadows to indorse Howard Dean without an underlying purpose. Gore is sore about the way the party treated him in the wake of the 2000 election. He had lost the White House for the Democrats at a critical time in world history. All that will be written will be about George W. Bush and the Republicans. The Democrats have found themselves on the outside looking in and they don’t like it.
Instead of laying blame on the Clinton scandals, as they should have, the blame was laid on Al Gore. Of course, the Clintons did little to set the record straight. Rather than admit wrong doing and so set the stage for corrective action, the issue was spun for the sake of party unity: Gore lost because Bush was “selected” and not “elected”.
Thus, Gore indorsed Dean for one reason and one reason only. Dean is the closest thing to an alpha-male the Democrats have and maybe- just maybe- the two of them, as a team, could oust the Clintons from party power. Dean has wowed the Democrat base by developing his own sources of funding separate from the Terry McAuliffe’s money machine.
McAuliffe, of course, is the Clinton master fund-raiser heading up the party apparatus. With cash flow safe from being choked off by the Clintons, Gore and Dean could possibly force McAuliffe out of his job as chairman and so rest control away from Bill Clinton. Thus, Hillary would not be able to squelch any viable competition for the Democrat nomination in 2008. Rest assured, if the Clintons are not ousted, Hillary will be the nominee.
The thing truly disturbing to me about some of my dinner-mate’s positions was this inability to see what the Clinton’s have done to their party. Just as he rode Arkansas into the ground during his term as Governor, and just as he sullied the Oval Office, Bill Clinton is looking out for himself, rather than the Democrat Party. Instead of working to put the best Democrat candidate up against George W. Bush in 2004, the Clintons appear to be undermining all of the candidates, but much more so Howard Dean. If Dean wins, Hillary will not have a clear path to the White House in 2008.
To some liberals, Bill Clinton was the “first black president”. This is because he supposedly understood black values and placed blacks in high positions of government: Jocelyn Elders as Surgeon General and former Representative Mike Espy as Secretary of Agriculture. Elders is famous for advocating teaching children how to masturbate and Espy was charged but later acquitted in a District of Columbia Federal Court for allegedly accepting illegal gifts from Tyson Foods.
Compare this to how George W. Bush appointed former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired General Colin Powell to Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Conservatives see these individuals as two of the most powerful people in the executive branch. A good many liberals see Powell and Rice as little more than Bush’s “house servants”.
The “New” Mainstream
This puts a new spin on what may be defined as the “mainstream”: Anyone expressing Christian religiosity is out; and owing to the suggestion in some quarters that the Jewish Menorah be henceforth referred to as the “Jewish Candlestick” (so as not to offend “anyone”), Jews are now out, too.
Gun owners are definitely out as are SUV owners. I am not sure about meat eaters but home schoolers are out because, if parents are opposed to having their children’s religious values undermined by public education, those parents obviously hold “extremist views”.
Many eyebrows were raised when presidential candidate Howard Dean said, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." As crazy as this sounds, many liberals simply do not want southern white males, much less pick-up driving ones, in the Democrat party. In effect, an entire region of the Unites States has been being written off!
Those who don’t like gangster rap are out because they are obviously bigoted racist pigs. Anyone that does not hold to global warming are out as is all of those that want to register illegal aliens.
You see, registering aliens for any purpose, to include guest workers, is problematic: A data base is created which can be compared with motor-voter applicants. In this way, non-citizens living here either legally or illegally could be caught trying to vote.
Anti-abortionists are definitely out. Strict-constructionists are out as is anyone who opposes universal health care. “Universal” of course is defined as health care provided by the U.S. Government. If free enterprise is involved in any way, no matter how good the system might be, it is, in there view, not really universal.
Of course, this begs the question: If the liberal view is so mainstream, why do they have to scramble for hanging chads and illegal aliens voters?
Another topic that came up was the matter of taxes and the economy. On one hand, 6% unemployment is a liberal indicator of the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. On the other hand, lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy, which should ultimately result in more tax revenue, is giving welfare to the rich.
One of my fellow guests was too happy to point out that one newspaper op-ed column has (conveniently) estimated the Bush tax cut to precisely match the 89 billion dollar cost of rebuilding Iraq. In other words, the hated tax cut, if it had just not been signed into law, would have just paid for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Liberal views on taxes would also seem irrational if you didn’t know what they really want: The elimination of rich people; or at least the elimination of Republican rich people.
The historical record does not support the Democrat view that lowering taxes costs the government revenue. For example, the standard Democrat argument is that the Reagan tax cuts busted the budget. In 1994, President Clinton’s own Council of Economic Advisors stated that “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
The U.S. House of Representatives Joint Economic Committee studied the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (the Reagan tax cuts) and made many interesting conclusions. First, the committee concluded that the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s stimulated the post war economy as did the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s. Second, the result of both tax cuts was not less taxes from the rich but actually more. This is because high taxes encourage both tax avoidance and tax evasion. High taxes discourage work, saving, and investing.
According to IRS data, the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a sharp increase of tax payments from the top 1% of tax payers. In just 7 years, this top 1% saw the percentage of their tax contributions climb 10 points from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% in 1988. Individual income tax revenues climbed from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Note that the Reagan tax cuts were needed to bring about an economic recovery from the crushing “Carter” recession.
Where the Democrats hang their budget busting claims is on the huge “Reagan” deficits of the 1980s. While the Federal revenues increased 56% from 1981 to 1989, Federal spending soared 69% from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.143 trillion in 1989. While Reagan did sign the spending legislation, it was the Democrat Congress that drafted the bills. Note that while the percentages emphasize the revenue shortfall, the deficit percentage of the Gross National Product actually fell over the same period from 5% of GNP to only 2.9% of GNP.
Had Bush 41 not agreed with his Democrat congress to raise taxes, and spending was held constant, that deficit may have turned into a budget surplus. It was the tax increases of 1989 that actually broke the proverbial bank: revenues declined sharply so that revenues only increased 14% from 1989 to 1993 while Federal spending galloped ahead 23%.
The Kennedy tax cuts were just as beneficial. The U.S. economy surged ahead 5.8% in 1964 followed by two more years of 6.4%.
The Mellon tax cuts under presidents Coolidge and Harding had similar effect. The top tax rate, which at the income tax inception in 1913 had been only a flat across the board 7%, grew to as high as 77% by the end of World War I.
When the maximum tax rate had been cut to as little as 25%, tax revenue from the rich soared and the economy shot ahead with unemployment dropping from 6.7% to only 3.2%. The GNP grew at an average annual rate of 4.7%.
Thus, the arguments about America not being able to “afford” tax cuts is not just absurd, they are dishonest. Tax revenues actually increase because the economic activity that provides the taxes increase. Resistance to prudent tax cuts is not about losing revenue, it is about losing power.
Then there is the matter of governmental waste. However, we will have to leave that for another time…..
Dining with Liberals - Part One...CLICK HERE
Perry Hicks is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics, and is a former Ford Motor Company technical trainer. He currently works as an Associate Professor of Automotive Technology at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College in Richmond, VA.
Contact the Author: email@example.com