Good Essay By Neal Boortz

[The Wrath]

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA?

Yesterday afternoon I did what I usually do after finishing my program; I checked in with the Godfather to see what was on his talk radio agenda. The Man was engaged in a riff about the partisan warfare between Democrats and Republicans and, as usual, doing a sensational job. One problem though. I could have sworn that I heard the words "The Democrats have no agenda." I'm probably mistaken there .. but just in case I wasn't driving through an area of high interference and actually heard him right .. I now offer an alternative opinion.

The Democrats most certain DO have an agenda. It's just not an agenda that they are anxious to promote. The Democratic agenda can be succinctly stated in just a few words: Make Americans ever more dependent on government, and thus dependent on Democrats. There's bandwidth to fill, however, so we'll use a few more words to explain just what the Democrats want to accomplish.

A significant part of the Democrat agenda is the war on individuality. This was is no fig newton of my imagination. Master Democrat Ted Kennedy has made reference to this war in just those terms. Following a New England Patriots Super Bowl win several years ago Kennedy stumbled up to the microphone to share in the celebration, there to praise the teamwork of the Patriots, so welcome at a time that we are engaged in a "war against individuality." So ... his words, not mine.

The war on individuality goes hand-in-hand with the Democrats goal of increasing dependency on government. People who celebrate their individuality are people who are far more likely to become successful and independent. They follow their own dreams, not those of the masses; and in so doing they become more self sufficient and less dependent on government. In case you haven't noticed, Democrats aren't particularly fond of the idea of people becoming less dependent on government.

There's another nasty little problem with the concept of individuality ... at least its a problem for Democrats. When you recognize (dare I say celebrate?) the concept of the individual, you then have to recognize that individuals have rights. Individual rights, not group rights. This would include the individual right to life, liberty and property. Democrats haven't yet made any objections they might have to the right to life apparent, but they take a back seat to nobody on their lack of respect for concepts of individual liberty and property rights. The one property right most troublesome to Democrats? That would be the right an individual has to the fruits of his labors.

More of the Democratic agenda? Look to government schools. Our children must be "educated" (indoctrinated) by the government. All possible means must be pursued to keep these children out of private schools where the influence of government is muted. Now the Democrats know that they can't attempt to outlaw private schools, at least not yet; but they certainly can make it as hard as possible for a parents to pursue that option. School choice is a dead issue with Democrats. Vouchers? Forget it. It's just not going to happen. The government gets to decide where and how your children are going to be "educated," and that's that. Our children must be taught that American is great because of its government. If these children are allowed to escape the government schools for a private education there's that chance that they will be taught the dangerous notion that America is great because of the dynamic of free people working cooperatively and competitively in a system based on individual liberty and economic freedom. The concept of individual liberty is incompatible with the goal of making people more dependent on government.

More of the Democrat agenda? How about socialized medicine? This is part and parcel of the effort to make people dependent on government. Personally, I think the Democrats have one this one. Socialized medicine in the United States is inevitable. Most Americans now believe that it is either the government's or their employer's responsibility to take care of their health needs. Last week I read you a story about some young high school athlete in Canada being put on a three-year waiting list for simple arthoscopic knee surgery. I had this surgery done five months ago. My waiting period? I saw the doctor for the first time on a Monday and the surgery was performed the following Thursday. Give the Democrats a chance to bring their socialized medicine to pass in our country and the wait will be months, if not years here. Socialized medicine is vitally important to Democrats. When you control a person's health care, you control that person. Besides .. .just think of the powerful election rhetoric socialized medicine will bring to Democrat politics: "If you elect Republicans or Libertarians they are going to make you pay for your own medical care."

Then there's "soak the rich" tax policies. How can you say that the Democrats have no agenda when they have made it abundantly clear that they would like nothing more than to see taxes raised on the evil, filthy, nasty, ugly rich. These government dependency programs take cash, and what better way to raise cash then to appease the gods of envy by raising taxes on the hated top 1% of income earners?

Is there more? You bet. Much more than I have time to present here.

*Social Security. People must not own their own retirement accounts. The government must be in control. Control retirement, control the individual.

*The United Nations. Weaken American by subjecting us to the whims of the international community through the world court and other UN institutions.

*Talk Radio: Bring back the Fairness Doctrine to browbeat radio station owners into dropping conservative and libertarian talk radio shows.

*Wealth confiscation: Levy a one-time tax on the outstanding balances in privately held retirement and pension accounts.

*Control pension fund investments through government regulations ... a ploy to reward Democrat-friendly unions and businesses.

*Shift more and more of the tax burden to the wealthiest Americans. Now that one-half of Americans have been relieved of the responsibility of paying any income taxes, give them a free ride on Social Security and Medicare taxes as well.

*Paid "Family Leave." Make employers continue to pay the salaries of employees to take the 12-week family leave for a new baby, to care for a sick relative or just because they don't like to work on Mondays.

*Government paid child care for all. Make the taxpayers pay for something that should be the responsibility of the parent.

*Repeal the Second Amendment. Only the government should have guns.

No agenda? That sounds like quite an agenda to me, and one that I'm not particularly comfortable with. All they need now is the power to enact their agenda .. and with continued Republican missteps, like their interference in the Schiavo matter, they may soon realize that goal.

[Tom Robinson]

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA?

The Democrats most certain DO have an agenda. 

  Look to government schools. 

  How about socialized medicine? 

 

  Then there's "soak the rich" tax policies. 

Since no modern Republican president or Congress has done anything but vote increases for government schools, increases for socialized medicine, and increases in the federal debt (which means more taxation or inflation--both forms of theft), I don't see how the Republicans' agenda differs from the Democrats'.

[Tom Robinson]

Posting error. Sorry.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[The Wrath]

He's not a Republican. He just prefers to harp on Democrats for whatever reason.

[Oakes]

Since no modern Republican president or Congress has done anything but vote increases for government schools, increases for socialized medicine, and increases in the federal debt (which means more taxation or inflation--both forms of theft), I don't see how the Republicans' agenda differs from the Democrats'.

I agree with this. Mr. Boortz can criticize the socialism of the left all he wants; it doesn't cover the obvious fact that Republicans have abandoned the free market in favor of a religious agenda. Nevertheless, if we agree that the only antidote is cultural (philosophical) change, it is only the major parties that have any incentive to adapt to such a change should it ever happen, because they are dependent on widespread acceptance. For that reason, I think our only hope for success is the rise of Secular Republicans.

[The Wrath]

I didn't like it because it bashes Democrats. I like it because it points out the flaws in systems like social security and such.

[Oakes]

I didn't like it because it bashes Democrats.  I like it because it points out the flaws in systems like social security and such.

That's understandable. It's a fine article and I have no objections to it. But I'd choose an Objectivist's critique of social security over a libertarian's any day

[The Wrath]

From what I've read, Neal Boortz has more in common with Objectivists than Libertarians. He's very pro-war-on-terror and, as evidenced by this essay, he believes in the proper moral base (individual rights) of Capitalism.

[the tortured one]

Neal Boortz is a self-styled Republitarian, much in the same vein as Larry Eldar. Both men were at once staunch supporters of the libertarian party, but they have since had falling outs due to their unwillingness to toe the LP party line. Neal Boortz, Larry Eldar, and John Stossel are all men who fall under this catagory (Stossel prefers the term classical liberal, which harkens back to Locke and Jefferson.) Another more humorous term could be a South Park Republican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican Though I think this wiki tab is incorrect in that any South Park references of Ayn Rand are vague at best, the nature of which can be debated.

They have no ties to the Republican party, nor the Libertarian party. Though I think they are merely tackling the largest dragons first, that being the democrats, which is mostly comprised of America's left leaning individuals. Even if the Republican party drifts left, they still cling to the Democrats because in their mind, the Republicans are fascists.

Edited April 27, 2005 by the tortured one

[The Wrath]

That's a pretty good description of him, I'd say, althought he's definitely more pro-capitalism than Republicans and he's right about a lot of things where Republicans are wrong (abortion, Terri Schiavo, etc.).

Oh, and there's one pretty explicit reference to Ayn Rand in South Park, when Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged.

[dwwoelfel]

That's a pretty good description of him, I'd say, althought he's definitely more pro-capitalism than Republicans and he's right about a lot of things where Republicans are wrong (abortion, Terri Schiavo, etc.).

He's just shy of an Objectivist, and I remember seeing Atlas Shrugged on his recommended reading list. However, he must have skipped some of Galt's speech, as you can see in this article he wrote defending his Schiavo position: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboo...b20050324.shtml.

[DavidV]

He's just shy of an Objectivist, and I remember seeing Atlas Shrugged on his recommended reading list.

Not at all. He may superficially promote pro-capitalist policies, but his philosophy is as deeply rooted in mysticism as the average conservative/libertarian. I say this based on the only time I've heard his show, which was in person for about three hours when he visited my school. For example, after hearing a story about a man who was trapped in a burning airplane and nearly died, he went into a spiel about such tragedies are “fated to happen” and are “blessings in disguise.”

Edited April 29, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist