Saturday, April 10, 2010

Opinion: Time for a Name Change, Democratic Party

It is indisputable that the tactics which the Democratic Party used to pass the Health Care overhaul were undemocratic. The nuclear option, once decried as an assault on democracy by Harry Reid and other prominent Democrat politicians, all the sudden became perfectly acceptable when the vote for further state control of health care came up. As the ruffian Democrat may counter, Republicans used the nuclear option under George W. Bush. However, he may not tell you that it was never used for a vote involving a 6th of the US economy, as the health bill did.

But perhaps the least democratic tactic was the deem and pass option which made a senate vote--which Scott Brown would have stopped--unnecessary for the passage of the health care overhaul.

Usually, democratic action involves debate, but the 2,000+ page health care bill was purposefully hidden from the public until 48 hours before the vote. Some surprise parts of the bill, such as the provision for an emergency health care army were only discovered, even by most Democrat Politicians, after the bill was passed.

New Name
In May of last year, several top Republicans suggested a name change to the "Democratic Socialist" party. It is commonly known that the most sincere of democrats love Marxist ideology and central planning schemes. Plus, every socialistic bit of legislation seems to be pushed by democrats these days. But, Democratic politicians are corporatist and bureaucratic before they are socialist. So adding the tag "socialist" is a bad idea.

We have already established that Democrat politicians don't care a damn for democratic process when it comes to votes on their beloved legislation, so they ought to get rid of the "Democratic" title. "Bureaucratic Party" may work, but sometimes Republicans start bureaucracies too--like the Department of Homeland Security. "Corporatist Party" might work, but then again, Republicans during the health care debate gave no opposition to how the AMA and big Pharma drive up heath care costs (through government patent and licensure, of course). A more distinctive name which may be appropriate is the Amoral Statist Party; or maybe the American Neo-Soviet Party; or the Government Growth Party; or the Spend Party; or the Nanny State Party. "Draconian party" would allow for the retention of the D abbreviation. Or, perhaps Democrats could adopt the name which earlier proactive fans of Karl Marx have: The Communist Party.


  1. I've got the new name: "The Spendocrat party."

    I wonder if there would be any limit to spending if it weren't for voters who don't want their money stolen. How much would suffice for the ideal Spendocrat budget? 5 trillion? 50% of GDP?

    You see, the way the government gains power is by locking up wealth within its control, and designating capital, land, and infrastructure for government use only. Fabian socialists who want us to surpass Europe's welfare state know this, and that is why they honk and shriek for more money, usually claiming that we'd be uncivilized if we don't surrender it to our loving government. After all, as justice Brennan said, they think all our wealth comes from the government to begin with.

  2. The point of the prior comment was to specify that Spendocrats literally rule by spending, or tying up resources via legislation fueled by spending.