NOT YOUR GREAT-GRANDFATHER'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY

President Grover Cleveland

Imagine a political party, that in its platform, resents "the tendency of selfish interests to the centralization of Government power, and steadfastly maintained the integrity of the dual scheme of Government established by the founders of this Republic of republics".

Picture a Party that, instead of standing steadfastly for the virtually unlimited federal government we painfully endure today, espouses, "the faithful observance of constitutional limitations", and that stands for the, "great principle of local self-government has found its best expression in the maintenance of the rights of States".

Which major political party would you guess denounces, "the profligate waste of the money wrung from the people by oppressive taxation and the lavish appropriations", of recent Congresses, "which have kept taxes high, while the labor that pays them is unemployed, and the products of the people's toil are depressed in price till they no longer repay the cost of production"?

Which party, rather than continually promoting the parasitic, endless growth of federal bureaucracy, demands a, "reduction in the number of useless offices, the salaries of which drain the substance of the people"?

Now envision this party platform all being on one page, not buried in the behemoths being produced by today's political parties. One might think that the above is reference to the Republican Party or the Libertarian Party. Believe it or not, the above excerpts are from the Democratic Party Platform of 1896.

Amazingly, Democrat President Grover Cleveland, who unlike today's Democrats (and sadly, many Republicans) opposed subsidies to both business and farmers, vetoed 584 bills. Among the most noteworthy was the "Texas Seed Bill" in 1887. Severe droughts had decimated Texas crops and do-gooder members of Congress wanted to provide taxpayer funds for the affected farmers. Cleveland understood that "charity" is not a constitutionally enumerated power and that usurping that role from the public, long-term, would open up the doors to infinite government spending, while suppressing the American public's natural inclination towards helping their fellow citizens in need. Cleveland explained his veto decision to Congress:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."

"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

The Founding Fathers didn't authorize Congress to conduct acts of charity because, in their wisdom and understanding of human nature, they knew that power-hungry, corrupt politicians would use it as a deceptive tool to buy votes.

Democrats were formerly in strict opposition to a central bank (such as the Federal Reserve), against fiat paper money, against government entanglement in private business (especially big business, hence the term, "for the little guy"), and against government debt (except when necessary to fund wars).

Today's Democrats promote massive government, Keynesian economics (print, borrow, and spend towards prosperity. I refer to them as the, "Money Grows on Trees Crowd".), and receive a high percentage of their campaign contributions from Wall Street, huge corporations seeking special treatment, lobbyists, and trial lawyers. Modern-day Democrats are diametrically opposed to traditional democratic and constitutional values and principles.

I take no pleasure in saying this about one of our country's major political parties, but the current principles of the Democrat Party are very closely aligned with the ten planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. The indisputable facts are that Democrat President Barack Obama had Marxist parents, sought out Marxist professors in college, has a mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a Communist Party USA member, has associated with Socialists and Communists his entire adult life, and has appointed several Marxist "czars" to his administration. More importantly, Obama's un-American, freedom and economy-killing policies are Marxist, and are wholeheartedly endorsed by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a plethora of other top Democrats.

I'm not saying that all Democrats are Marxists (i.e., the politically correct, more palatable word being "Progressives"). I am saying that some Democrats are Marxists, some innocently, and some knowingly, and they happen to be led by the first Marxist President of the United States. It is the responsibility of those remaining traditional Democrats to rid their party of those who seek to destroy America as we know it.

In the same vein, the Republican Party must purge itself from RINO's. The Republican Party will not survive another round of being "Big Government Party #2", as it did during the George W. Bush years, but I digress.

Today's Democrat leaders are not your Great-Grandfather's Democrats. Shoot, they aren't even your Mother or Father's Democrats. The Republican Party hasn't upheld their conservative principles either, but at least they're not in bed with Karl Marx. Keep that in mind when you pull the lever on November 2nd.

Cross posted on Red County

Less Government = More Freedom