Democrats: The Cliff's Notes Answer to Politics

When I was taking English Literature courses in high school and college, the teachers always warned us not to read the Cliff's Notes in place of the assigned books. Cliff's Notes were pamphlets that were sold as supplemental study aids to fine works of literature. You were supposed to read the assigned chapters of "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Great Gatsby" or "A Tale of Two Cities", before using the Cliff's Notes to recap what you'd just read. Teachers feared that students wouldn't be bothered reading the full books when they could simply read the condensed summaries from the Cliff's Notes. Classic literature can be dry, detailed and certainly not ideal for those with short attention spans. But teachers worried that by taking the easy way out, students would be unwilling or unable to form their own conclusions on the meaning of the stories they were assigned. In other words, rather than do the work and think for themselves, many students would be inclined to skip the work and rely on someone else's interpretation of the facts.

In political terms, Democrats have always embraced the Cliff's Notes approach when seeking voters. The less details people know, the better. Liberals don't like individuals who are curious and think for themselves. Instead, they separate people into categories or interest groups, by race, gender, sexual orientation and employment status, among others. Then they arbitrarily assign "leaders" to speak on behalf of each interest group. The various community leaders are then tasked with the responsibility of delivering votes for the Democrat Party. So the self-annointed, party-approved community leaders set about trying to convince a group of individuals that they will get farther in life collectively rather than individually. The spokespeople for the various Democrat interest groups stir up their members by creating a phony us vs. them posture. They proceed to demonize those with differing viewpoints and suggest that the "opposition" isn't interested in "our needs". Or, worse, they're working in direct conflict to make sure those needs are never met. The assigned leaders then shepherd their flocks into the voting booths so that their masses will mark all the boxes with (D) next to them. And, the Democrat leadership always has a ready-made excuse whenever they don't deliver on their promises: it's Republicans who are at fault...and if you just vote for more Democrats the next time around, these failures will turn into the promised successes. As long as they keep their little commodities from thinking for themselves, they can continue this charade in perpetuity.

Liberalism is a much easier sell to the so-called "have nots" than is conservatism. It takes no critical thought to be a liberal, just fall into line behind the leaders and let them do the thinking and the advocating for you. On the other hand, conservatives, by nature, are individuals who know that you don't get ahead in life by letting others speak for you. You are the master of your domain and you want to have the ultimate say in determining your fate. As a conservative, you understand that there are risks that you must assume in order for you to have a chance to excel. You have to look out for yourself and your family first, and there's nothing wrong with that.

On the issues, liberals and Democrats believe in collectivism and government control. Their mission is Centralized power, where no one has more than anyone else (except, of course, for those who work in government). In appealing to the lowest common denominator, stirring jealousy and hatred for the successful, liberals have sought to convince their followers that you can somehow make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Liberals have a lack of faith in the ability of individuals to make their own choices in life and to succeed without government interference. That is why they embrace collectives like labor unions, minority groups and bureaucratic health insurance schemes. That is why they repackage their stale and failed ideas by calling themselves "progressives" and by insisting their punitive tax grabs are only "tax increases on the rich". That is also why they employ group intimidation tactics to frighten and weaken those who dare to follow their own paths. From the violent picket lines to the threatening language they use to bully those who run afoul of standard groupthink, liberals do their utmost to stifle substantive debate. And think of how proud Democrats save special mistreatment for those they believe should naturally, by birth, side with them. It's no overstatement to say that more than 40 years on, the left has treated Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas with about as much hatred and ill-will as Ross Barnett had for James Meredith in Mississippi. It's not hyperbolic to suggest that so-called Women's groups have given Tammy Bruce about as much respect as they've reserved for their aborted fetuses. And how much courage does it take for a bunch of oversized union goons to surround a woman and her children entering a grocery store? It's much easier for some people to accept Kathy Griffin's assessment of Condi Rice as something akin to a "house nigger" than to consider that Ms. Rice is a talented, accomplished woman who earned her stripes on her own and who would make a great President.

In politics as in school, it's always better to read the book cover to cover and draw your own conclusions than to scan the Cliff's Notes and parrot someone else's. Besides, I would much rather be Clarence Thomas than one of the faceless followers of Al Sharpton.