The Democratic Party has finally moved to the far left. Peggy Noonan, in her op-ed (WSJ, 5/7/16, p. A11), found that, in Indiana, in 2016, 68% of Democratic voters called themselves liberal. Only 39% of Indiana Democrats called themselves liberal in 2008. In South Carolina, 53% of Democrats called themselves liberal. In 2008 this number was 44%.
Today, the term “liberal” is code for “progressive” or “socialist. Only Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. Hillary Clinton likes the term progressive.” A 2015 Gallup poll showed 47% of Democrats and left leaning independents now identify as socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal. This compared to 39% in 2008 and 30% in 2001.
The Republican Establishment also has moved leftward. There is little difference between the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy and the Republican Establishment today. But there is a fine nuance here. The “inside-the-beltway” Republican Establishment has moved leftward but not the Republican base, most of which now support Donald Trump as a change agent.
Inside the Washington beltway, America now sees essentially one political party: The Democrats pass national socialist legislation and the Republican Party approvingly tweaks the legislation. There is no difference between the political parties inside the Washington beltway. In Washington, no one looks out for the average American.
This is why the conservative Republican base is avidly supporting a populist New York liberal who has promised to shake things up. Trump is the outsider that captured the Republican base from the Republican establishment. And Democrats are frightened. The truth is finally seeing the light of day. The accusation from Democrats that the Republican Party has been taken over by its far-right wing has been disproven.In reality, the Democratic Party has been taken over by its far-left wing. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is doing better in the primaries than Hillary, although Hillary outpaces Bernie in delegates.
More interesting is the question: what is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? During an interview on his cable show, Chris Matthews twice asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference is between a Democrat and socialist, with Matthews commenting, “I used to think there was a big difference, what do you think it is? Wasserman Schultz refused to answer or could not the question. It is not surprising she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question. There is little, if any, difference.
Slowly but surely Democrats are revealing their true loyalties. They are admitting to be liberal, to being progressive and even socialist as Bernie Sanders admits. What they are really afraid to admit is they are national socialists. There is no difference between the Democratic Party adherents and then early fascist parties in Italy and Germany. Jonah Goldberg recognized this in 2009 in his best seller, Liberal Fascism.
Richard Winchester of the American Thinker, in his article, “The ‘Differences Between Democrats and Socialists,” wrote that the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party came to “dominate first the presidential process, then the national legislature, and eventually in many states and localities, is too well-known to require extended comment.” Winchester also wrote about “the decades-long shift by American Socialists, such as the late Michael Harrington, to work through the Democratic Party to achieve socialists’ goals. . . . Today, there are still small socialist parties, but most socialists work through the Democratic Party . . .”
Interestingly, Chris Matthews asked Hillary Clinton the same question as Wasserman-Shultz. Clinton vigorously denied she was a socialist but found herself either unwilling or unable to answer the question.
The reason Democrats like Clinton and Wasserman Schultz cannot answer Chris Matthews’ question is because being a Democratic Socialist is a contradiction. As socialist government increases in size, individual liberty decreases. As government increases control over the private sector, the economy heads into a death spiral: witness Venezuela. Its citizens are denied electricity, food and toilet paper.
Even former Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb said his party has “moved way far to the left.” He continued that the Democratic Party is “not my Democratic Party in and of itself.” Democratic principles and Socialism cannot co-exist in the same nation. This is why Clinton and Wasserman refused to answer the Matthews-posed question. Neither Clinton nor Wasserman wanted to offend Democrats who are self described socialists. Essentially, Clinton and Wasserman refused to address the extremist problem in the Democratic Party, partly because both are socialists.
Chris Matthews also asked the same question of Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Schumer: “Oh, it depends on how you define each one, doesn’t it?”
Matthews: “Well, you do it.”
Schumer: “Well, I’m not gonna get into it, but uh. . . I have nothing bad to say about Bernie Sanders.”
Back to Debbie Wasserman Schultz: subsequent to the Matthews interview, Chuck Todd, of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” asked the same question. Wasserman gave the same non-answer. However, if you look at the original Matthews interview, Wasserman finally blurts out, Bernie Sanders is a good Democrat.
In effect, Debbie Wasserman Schultz backed into Chris Matthews’ question. There is no difference between a Democrat and a Socialist