The Party Of Children

I just love it when Addison takes the time to write sumpin' thoughtful and send it to me. It is my honor to post sumpin' he wrote over the weekend.

Whilst walking the aisles of the supermarket shortly after 3AM, I thought of an analogy in explaining the Democrat Party, and the Left in general, with regard to elections, that I had not yet seen.

When a child becomes frightened by something real or imagined, it seeks a parent, usually its mother, to comfort it and tell it approving, positive stories in an attempt to calm the nerves and apply salve to mental wounds. Make the boogieman go away with sweet stories of princesses in fantasylands, if you will.

As with children, the Left seeks comforting stories and distortions of reality to comfort itself in times of distress. Recently, in a 2002 election cycle that saw unheard of gains for the President’s party, the Left told itself that it “had not gotten its message out”, as though ABC, NBC, CBC, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, et al. had been conspiring against the Democrat Party to silence them.

The idea that they were openly weak on defense issues was not countenanced. The idea that their values were not in line with most Americans was not, either. The idea that Democrat tax policy was, as they say, a bit “long in the tooth” was not, either. Obstruction of judicial nominees? No. The problem, the reason they did not win, was because something external, some other was stymieing their rightful place as arbiters of truth and goodness.

In the recent election, the election following a year and a half of unprecedented personal attacks on a sitting President carried out through billionaire-backed 527s, fraudulent stories in the mainstream press (TexANG, Al Qaqaa), celebrities warning of such inanities as legalized rape if Bush is elected, and an endless news cycle of “quagmire in Iraq” and “economic woes”, the Left cannot claim its message “did not get out”. It had to find another boogieman, another other to explain its electoral losses.

Naturally, it latched on to the anti-same sex marriage initiatives in eleven states across the nation. The problem, you see, was not that John Kerry was one of the worst political candidates in US history, what with his lack of core values other than self-promotion, arrogance, inability to speak succinctly, long history of embellishment and outright lies about his own past, proclivity to marry profoundly rich women and decry those making over $200,000/annum as “rich” while he sits on a dead man’s ~$750 million; not that the Democrat Party itself, an onanistic cartel of self-aggrandizers, insular elitists who espouse the values of Europe, not America, etc., etc., were the problem. No, it was that America is full of anti-gay Bible-thumping bigots who followed Karl Rove’s pied piper song to the ballot box.

Never mind that legitimate exit polling data shows Bush’s percentage of voters who regularly attend Church did not increase (but did increase in all other voting groups). Never mind the inconvenience of a weak political party, weak candidates, weak ‘ideas’ (if you wish to call emoted platitudes ‘ideas’)… No, the problem was the bucolic bigot who hates homosexuals.

This is the Left’s new security blanket, its soothing story after the frightening experience. As a child cannot reasonably understand or be told by a parent that its mind created the boogieman or sounds that frightened it, the collective mind of the Left is incapable of contending with the realization that the problem could possibly lie within, not without.

I have never been a person on the Left but I was once a child. It is all too clear that the disparity between the thought processes of the two is minimal at best, non-existent at worst.

For ten years, the Democrat Party has lost seats at the national level in the Senate and House. For ten years, it has lied to itself as to the reason why. May they keep comforting themselves with comforting lies as far as I care.

Wasn't that great? Why can't I write stuff like that? And here is sumpin' P. J. O'Rourke wrote back in 1991 that is very similar.

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

Posted by denny at November 9, 2004 02:17 PM