Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » How Democrats are like Digestive Disorders

How Democrats are like Digestive Disorders

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

For as long as I can remember, I’ve had Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and related digestive disorders. I recently was joking around with my friends trying to explain to them that my stomach’s solution to every problem, complication, or regular event seems to be to produce stomach acid. And the excessive stomach acid, which in normal amounts is necessary to break down my food, gives me regular bouts with painful stomach cramps. This in turn limits my enjoyment of eating foods I enjoy and causes delays in going places.

So how is that like Democrats? Democrats’ solution to every problem, real or perceived, is more government. Can you think of the last time the Democratic party proposed anything aside from more government? To clarify, government is necessary in moderate amounts. Government has a role in protecting our liberties, providing for the common defense, enforcing contracts, protecting the environment (from pollution, not the irrational special interest driven protection currently in effect), etc. However, when too much government intervention, regulation, and taxation exists, it hampers economic growth, incentivizes bad behavior, causes moral hazards, and creates perpetual economic busts and recessions.

There are three potential areas in which Democrats could possibly be perceived as not demanding more government involvement. The first is gay marriage. However a closer examination of the gay marriage debate reveals that at the heart of the gay marriage debate is gays receiving government benefits/incentives from being married. The libertarian view is that government should stay out of marriage, neither giving it incentives or disincentives (government incentives usually come at the expense of someone else’s dollar); therefore demonstrating that government involvement is still involved in the Democrat’s seemingly laissez-faire action. Granted, in this case Democrats aren’t solely at fault here, as Republicans like to incentivize marriage to create a solid family structure.

Next is the issue of abortion, where it could appear that they don’t want others to interfere with “women’s rights”. The are two problems with this line of thinking, one being that in order to create on demand abortions in every state instead of letting the people of each individual state decide, they had to ram it through with judicial activism in arguably the worst supreme court decision in history. The other issue is that Democrats scream like children if you try to eliminate government funding of Planned Parenthood. Just so we’re on the same page, Planned Parenthood is nonprofit organization, separate from the government; so giving them taxpayer funds to “keep on keeping on” is certainly government involvement.

The last issue Democrats seemingly don’t call for increased government involvement is illegal immigration. Most Democrats appear to be happy having an open border and allowing whomever and whatever to cross it freely. If that were just the case, then yes, Democrats would prefer the government avoid getting involved. The great irony here is that border control is one of the few actual responsibilities of government, and Democrats appear to abdicate this authority. Despite their appearances, a closer inspection reveals that Democrats make it easier for illegals to receive entitlements, obtain “worker’s rights” such as minimum wage, and constantly push for amnesty to give them the right to vote (presumably, not for Republicans). So Democrats give governmental incentives for illegals to come here, meaning they are quite involved in the issue. Again, to be fair, a number of Republicans are weak on this issue as well; with the prime examples being Reagan who signed the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986″ amnesty bill and George W Bush who pushed for Ted Kennedy’s “comprehensive immigration reform” (aka amnesty) under his administration.

Speaking to Democrats reveals that many of them have good intentions. They legitimately want to help people. Obviously, I don’t feel that way about the Democratic politicians who are in bed with industries trying to push green energy and union agendas. Many Democratic voters want to feel the reassurance which government theoretically provides and that leads to their big government desires. They sympathize with the poor, and try to help them by passing policies that in the end create dependency/lasting poverty and adverse economic effects. Democrats want to be judged based on their intentions and goals, not the results. They become upset if you refer to Obama as a socialist, because socialism has such a reputation of failure and an overwhelmingly negative connotation. They view the term as an insult, rather than what it is, an economic and social policy.

I remain unconvinced of most prominent Democrats’ intentions. Are they looking out just for the special interests and telling people what they want to hear, knowing that the Democratic voting base is unlikely to look closely at their voting records? Do they legitimately feel that government involvement is going to create widespread prosperity? Or do they just subvert the free market system knowing creating high paying unnecessary government jobs and special interest tax incentives are great ways to get money and votes from the beneficiaries of the taxpayer money? Largely I believe it depends on the politician, nationally I think its more corrupt than locally. Regardless of their intention, I oppose 90 percent plus of the Democratic agenda. I don’t judge based on feelings and emotions, but based on policies and results.

Similarly, I remain skeptical that my stomach is a socialist subversive. My stomach does do great violence to my quality of life at times, but is that because he hates the fact that I’m a free market capitalist or is it because he’s misguided? There’s a good chance that my stomach believes that every event requires more stomach acid for my own good, regardless of its consequences. My stomach doesn’t act based on the results of past actions; precedence is no indicator of outcome in his mind. In some ways my stomach deserves credit for being consistent, his actions always appear to be predictable; and there is a certain comfort in knowing how something will act. However, in my stomach’s case and in the case of Democrats, the consistent reaction is a painful one.

Powered by

About Nick Croucher