It's interesting that whenever I try to nail down the philosophy of the Democratic Party, you have a tendency to drift back in time to the Roosevelt Era or earlier. Leaving aside Roosevelt's actual political goals, can we discuss the current Democratic leadership, methods, and philosophical base?

The current Democratic Party has little in common with the Party of even forty years ago, much less the Depression Era. Looking at archtypical Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey reveals a political viewpoint that has one heck of a lot more in common with present-day Republicans than anything else.

* * *

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."



--Sen. Hubert Humphrey, "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.

"...For it is increasingly clear--to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.

Now, when the inflationary pressures of the war and the post-war years no longer threaten, and the dollar commands new respect--now, when no military crisis strains our resources--now is the time to act. We cannot afford to be timid or slow. For this is the most urgent task confronting the Congress in 1963.

In an early message, I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates which will lower liabilities by $13.5 billion. Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates, which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent, with a split in the present first bracket. Two and one-half billion dollars results from reducing corporate tax rates, from 52 percent--which gives the Government today a majority interest in profits--to the permanent pre-Korean level of 47 percent. This is in addition to the more than $2 billion cut in corporate tax liabilities resulting from last year's investment credit and depreciation reform.

To achieve this reduction within the limits of a manageable budgetary deficit, I urge: first, that these cuts be phased over 3 calendar years, beginning in 1963 with a cut of some $6 billion at annual rates; second, that these reductions be coupled with selected structural changes, beginning in 1964, which will broaden the tax base, end unfair or unnecessary preferences, remove or lighten certain hardships, and in the net offset some $3.5 billion of the revenue loss; and third, that budgetary receipts at the outset be increased by $1.5 billion a year, without any change in tax liabilities, by gradually shifting the tax payments of large corporations to a more current time schedule. This combined program, by increasing the amount of our national income, will in time result in still higher Federal revenues. It is a fiscally responsible program--the surest and the soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget in a balanced full employment economy.

This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.

I do not say that a measure for tax reduction and reform is the only way to achieve these goals.

--No doubt a massive increase in Federal spending could also create jobs and growth--but, in today's setting, private consumers, employers, and investors should be given a full opportunity first.

--No doubt a temporary tax cut could provide a spur to our economy--but a long-run problem compels a long-run solution.

--No doubt a reduction in either individual or corporation taxes alone would be of great help--but corporations need customers and job seekers need jobs.

--No doubt tax reduction without reform would sound simpler and more attractive to many--but our growth is also hampered by a host of tax inequities and special preferences which have distorted the flow of investment.

--And, finally, there are no doubt some who would prefer to put off a tax cut in the hope that ultimately an end to the cold war would make possible an equivalent cut in expenditures-- but that end is not in view and to wait for it would be costly and self-defeating.

In submitting a tax program which will, of course, temporarily increase the deficit but can ultimately end it--and in recognition of the need to control expenditures--I will shortly submit a fiscal 1964 administrative budget which, while allowing for needed rises in defense, space, and fixed interest charges, holds total expenditures for all other purposes below this year's level.

This requires the reduction or postponement of many desirable programs, the absorption of a large part of last year's Federal pay raise through personnel and other economies, the termination of certain installations and projects, and the substitution in several programs of private for public credit. But I am convinced that the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic problems in this Congress. For we cannot for long lead the cause of peace and freedom, if we ever cease to set the pace here at home."

-- John F. Kennedy, State of the Union, 1963



Let's hear statements like this from Ted Kennedy, or ANY modern Democratic leader.

My thesis is that the present-day Democratic Party is collectivist at its core, drawing largely from socialism's goals and theories (although purists would probably call it Mussolini-style fascism). Most Democratic politicians, drifting along the comfortable surface of their political beliefs, never examine this closely.

If one makes this assumption, many of the problems of the Democratic Party in finding a direction are revealed as an inability to effectively integrate this core belief with an electorate that, for the most part, is most definitely not socialist.

No doubt many here disagree with this assumption, and I can't blame you. Nobody likes to think that they are aligned, even if only philosophically, with a movement that has murdered over 80 million people this century and annihilated every nation that has wholeheartedly embraced it.

But if you're going to argue, I'm going to set the parameters.

I'm not the least bit interested in ends, only in means. Let me explain.

When you ask a liberal about the goals of his politics, he will generally spout something along the lines of being for "better education, helping the poor, health care for all, a clean environment, economic growth" etc. etc. yada, yada, yada.

All ends. No means. Check out any "progressive" web site, and you'll find similar loads of mental Jell-O, with damn few specific mechanisms actually laid out.

Let's establish that we are ALL in favor of nice things for everybody. Huzzah! Okay? That being said:

When we contrast political movements, let's stick to means. HOW do the Democrats propose getting health care for everyone? HOW do they want to improve education? How does this compare to what the solutions a socialist would put forth (assuming you can nail them down on it)? A Republican? A libertarian?

How the sausage is made tells the story. I submit that if you laid out a list of specific programs and policies--means, not ends--from the Democratic Party, and a similar list from the Democratic Socialists of America, you would find an awful lot in common.

In fact, as an exercise, try finding a political "means" that the Democratic Party and a Socialist would disagree on.

I can think of only two off the top of my head, the biggie that usually gets fired back at me being state ownership of means of production (Democrats instead prefer absolute state control of means of production, and feel that ownership is pretty much redundant at that point.)

What can you come up with?

I am waiting to see who ends up as House Minority Leader. Pelosi, or Frost. And then we will have learned something important about the future of the Democrats.