When Will Dems Reclaim “Red State”?

Democrats are embracing socialism. Multitudes of them spurn capitalism. They gave us our most leftist president in history. Their current front-runner presidential candidate is running even to the left of him, and hot on her heals is a self-declared socialist.

What’s next – taking back “red state”?

That thought is half in jest, but things are getting so crazy – with millions of folks flocking to the failed socialist ideas of the past – that it’s within the realm of possibility.

When displaying their electoral maps, the media at some point could very well transition back to red states for Democrats and blue states for Republicans.

Prior to 2000, the U.S. media usually depicted red states as Democrat and blue states as Republican. That was in line with the rest of the world; in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, red was and still is associated with parties of the left, ranging from social democrat and labor parties, to communist parties. The U.K.’s Labour party’s color is red, as is Canada’s Liberal Party.

Likewise blue is associated with conservative parties, including the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom.

It’s only in the United States where those colors are reversed.

The adoption of red for leftist parties originated during the French Revolution and the failed European revolutions of 1848, in the form of the red flag. Red symbolized the blood of those who died in the struggle against capitalism.

Until recently in the United States, socialism was a dirty word for most Democrats as well as for Republicans. When socialism and communism were totally discredited after the fall of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Democrats must have hated it when the media depicted Democrat-leaning states as red and Republican-leaning ones as blue. They didn’t want to be associated in any way with Messrs. Marx and Engels.

So the mainstream media (who, of course, are overwhelmingly Democrats) reversed the color coding.

According to Wikipedia, it began in 2000 when MSNBC and NBC started showing electoral maps with blue states as Democratic, and red states as Republican. The David Letterman show followed suit, and the practice then caught on everywhere.

“Perhaps the most brazen language diktat has been the mischievous switch of political colors,” wrote Mark Helprin in the Wall Street Journal. “The change came in 2000 courtesy of MSNBC and NBC’s “Today” show. …Saddling your political rivals with a symbol to which they have been historically opposed is an even better and naughtier joke. Either it was that or numbing cluelessness.”

The red-blue switch initially somewhat bothered me but I got over it. If usurping blue freed the media and their Democratic allies from the insecurity of thinking that people would associate them with socialism and communism, then so what. Let them have their fun. And even though Republicans were unceremoniously slapped with red, no one is going to associate Republicans with the hammer and sickle because of it.

Plus, the use of “red” and “blue” is so much more common now in general discourse than it was pre-2000. Using the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” all the time can get boring, so why not liven things up a bit – add some color to the conversation – by throwing “red” and “blue” into the mix?

Nevertheless, as Helprin writes, “Red is the mobile color of passion and engagement, and blue the staid color of reason and detachment.” That characterization must tug at the hearts of bleeding-heart liberals, who thrive on passion (at the expense of reason). Surely there have got to be many of them who’d be more than happy reclaim the color red.

In spite of the evils of socialism so prominently on display today in Venezuela, the rapidity at which folks are moving left is dizzying.

A survey conducted by the right-leaning advocacy group American Action Network found that nearly six in ten Democratic primary voters think socialism has a “positive impact on society.” Forty-six percent of respondents under age 45 consider socialism the best form of government versus only 19 percent who prefer capitalism. A Bloomberg/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 43 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers said they would use the word “socialist” to describe themselves.

That helps explain why the self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders, once considered to be on the lunatic fringe in politics, ran such a competitive primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. What used to be the loony left is now nearly mainstream among Democrats. Hillary Clinton has tacked hard to the left, with speculation that she is even considering arch-leftist Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.

From there it’s not much of a step to proudly waive the red flag in solidarity with like-minded political parties the world over, followed by a take-back of the “red state” mantle.

 

(Originally published in Newsmax.com)

When a Liberal Meets the Paleoliberals

Great article by Eric Bell, a filmmaker and writer who started a project to document the events surrounding the building of an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., with the aim of portraying the proponents of the center in a positive light and the opponents of the center in a negative light – not necessarily to be intentionally biased but because that’s what he genuinely believed. He got funding and support from Hollywood bigwigs to bring the film to fruition.

But then he started learning some truths about militant Islam – truths that would make any genuine liberal shudder. The Arab spring had turned into a winter, where non-Muslims started fearing for their lives. He informed the funders that he wanted to mention some of these issues in his film. “I wanted to show what happens to countries when they gain a Muslim majority, how women are treated, that homosexuals were executed, that free speech did not exist, that the forced Islamic Law was not consistent with Democratic Values – anything and everything I could think of.”

But he soon learned that he was dealing with a lot of paleoliberals. They didn’t want to hear any of those ugly truths. “Eric you are starting to sound like an Islamophobe,” they told him. “We don’t want to make a movie that promotes fear. Let’s just stick with the existing plan, okay?”

Bringing up those realities about militant Islam constituted  “hate speech” and “propaganda designed to spread fear”. There’s a site called “Loonwatch” where people – such as Bell – who criticize radical and violent Islam are called a “loon”, in the pejorative sense. (That’s ironic, because the loon is one of the most beautiful species of waterfowl. Its call is also one of the most beautiful sounds of nature.)

Unwilling to stick with the original script, Bell had to give the money back. He also got banned from writing for the Daily Kos, for revealing his liberal (as opposed to paleoliberal) tendencies. He suffered plenty of other blowback as well.

“Given the incredible density of the popular Liberal mind, …the readers of my articles were unable to see how the beliefs of Islam were in direct conflict with human rights, gay rights, women’s rights and basic Democratic Values.”

Those people are what you call paleoliberals. And unfortunately, they greatly outnumber the liberals.

Both Against and For Unemployment

In Spain they’re demonstrating against unemployment, presumably private sector unemployment. But from what I gather from the news article on it, these aren’t Tea Party types. Instead they’re big-government types who embrace the welfare state.

Yet it’s the welfare state that’s causing the 21% unemployment rate in Spain, and 42% unemployment rate for those ages 15-24.

People who complain about unemployment are essentially lamenting the fact that there aren’t enough entrepreneurs and business people willing to take the enormous risks and go through the enormous hoops in order to try to hire a worker.

It’s really tough to hire and/or maintain a worker when you don’t know when, or from where, the revenue is going to come in to pay that worker. And you have to come up with a viable idea in the first place – something that people are going to want in exchange for their hard-earned money – in order to generate that revenue. That’s one tough endeavor, and most people don’t have the ability or willingness to do it. Most people rely on a tiny minority of people, called entrepreneurs, to go through those enormous hoops in order to generate the employment.

So if the welfare state is massive, with high taxes and stifling regulations to disincentivize entrepreneurs and business people, then unemployment is going to be high. What the protestors should be protesting is the welfare state.

Their intentions are to reduce unemployment. Their actions exacerbate it. And they don’t realize the irony.

There’s an election in Spain tomorrow. One protestor, who previously supported the Communist-led United Left, says she’s going to change her vote. Away from the far left? No, according to a CNN report. To an even more leftist party, she said.

Actually I didn’t think you could get more leftist than that. But apparently in Spain, you can.