I saw that last week, about a day before Rush Limbaugh did almost a whole show on it. It's a good article, and describes the "Animal Farm" issue (collusion between the farmers and the pigs) pretty well.

Peggy Noonan described the usual political choices as being between the "Creeps" and the "Nuts." This column is from January, and I'm not currently as optimistic about wresting the Republican Party away from the "Creeps" as she is. It's going to be a hard battle. I don't know if the Democrats even have a non-"Nut" contingent any more. The "Blue Dogs" are pretty much cowed mongrels at this point.

Jerry Pournelle has adopted the terminology, and expanded on it.

Heinlein boiled it down to basics:

^"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."^

People will tell you it isn't that simple, and at that point they start blowing fog up your skirts. In my experience, I've found that many of those trying to convince us that it's much more complicated than just liberty vs. tyranny are actually trying to sell us on some form of tyranny.

Has anyone in the modern Democratic Party ever advocated a policy or law that did NOT increase the power of the State and decrease the power and choices of individuals and local governments? Have they ever supported anything that did not involve further centralized control of our lives?