No Rules - Just Right

The conduct of the social progressives’ (“Democrats”) primary and their political maneuvering in Congress provides insight into how they will govern if they win the White House. Consider these facts:

1. Prior to the primary season, Clinton and Obama agreed with their party that Florida and Michigan primaries would not count toward the selection of the party’s presidential nominee. Now that the race is close and these votes would benefit one candidate or the other, at least one of the candidates and the party want to change the rules! One can argue that a decision to not seat these delegations in the first place was poor judgment; however, that is not my point. Besides being a prima facie example of anti-democratic voter disenfranchisement, it demonstrates the social progressives willingness to change the rules, whenever it is in their interest to do so.



2. Recently, social progressive Nancy Pelosi (the “Speaker” of the House of Representatives), preemptively changed the Fast Track rules in the House, to preclude the Colombian Free Trade Agreement from coming to a floor vote within 60 days. This action was taken in spite of the fact that the trade agreement negotiation was completed 16 months ago and the Fast Track provision has been honored for many years, on a non-partisan basis. Contrast this with the Republican’s threat to kill a rule in the Senate that would have allowed an up or down vote on Supreme Court justices. In that case, the social progressives cried foul, labeled such an act “the nuclear option” in the media, and ultimately prevailed (even, when in the minority), because a coalition of social progressives and Republicans banded together to preserve precedent and act within the mutually agreed senate rules (note I did not use the term “law,” because the “rule” is simply that … not a constitutional requirement).



3. Clinton’s campaign threatens to destroy the democratic “party” because of her unwillingness to cede defeat, identify mutual interests with her rival, bring the party together, and actually put together realistic strategies for governing from the middle. Her behavior is strangely reminiscent of her husband’s behavior: it is all about her. She will do whatever it takes to win … sort of a modern political version of Sherman’s march to the sea. “Gracious” loser is not in her vocabulary. Instead, she continues to divide her party and our country by promoting her version of the democratic party three point strategy: victimization (i.e., all problems are some else’s fault, usually George Bush’s); entitlement (i.e., she once stated she had more programs than the American people were capable of funding); and anti-intellectualism (viz., for the life of me, I see no integrated, well thought out plan to address our issues: its all about “change” wherever that takes us).

So, here is what I conclude from this. There are no rules. It is all about winning at any cost. “Reaching across the aisle” is simply a feel good slogan, and bi-partisan politics is a thing of the past. We are in the middle of two ideological wars: one against fundamental Islam and one against social progressive humanism. The social progressives believe in equality of outocome, not equality of opportunity. They embrace collectivism, not capitalism. Conservatives need to wake-up, face the brutal facts, and win back our country. As someone once observed “ words form ideas, and ideas have consequences.”