"Debate" Part 2

Second verse, same as the first.  But angrier.

I commented on part 1 of the Democrat “debate” in yesterday’s blog post (HERE).  My overall thoughts remain the same:  Frightening that any of these people could actually become the head of our country and terrifying what that would mean for this country (more details in that post). 

But, there were a few differences in the second “debate,” probably because the second night candidates were coached based at least in part on the first night and reactions to it.  So, there was more Trump bashing and there was more anger.   Especially from the women (except, of course, the love guru, Marianne Williamson); I think that Democrat women think that being angry somehow proves that they are strong.  Yet I have no doubt that Kamala Harris’s angry and self-righteous attack on Joe Biden was prepared and memorized long before the debate began – she just needed to find the right opportunity to use it.

Actually, the toxic anger spread from Kamala to the rest of the group on stage, making the “debate” even less useful than the first night.  Does anyone really think that anger and hate are the best way to govern?

There were a few other things that especially bothered me.  First is the number of candidates who indicated that their preferred method of governing was to ignore Congress and the will of the people and to govern instead via a stroke of the executive order pen.  Yes, executive orders are at times useful and necessary, but in a democracy that should not be the first choice; that sort of rule by fiat is far more suited to a dictatorship.  But, then, the further left a candidate goes, the more he or she is entering dictatorship territory – a place where the state tells us what to do, what to think and where the people have no real voice at all.

I was also bothered by the belief, expressed most articulately by Pete Buttigieg, that those who oppose the Left’s position on the border have no right to call themselves Christians or to ever invoke the name of God again.  I would argue that those who use religious teachings to support their secular agenda do not understand that the values and teachings of the Christian and other religions can be expressed in any number of ways in the secular world.  I happen to think that the directive to love or care for those in need is better expressed in terms of the migrants by doing what we can to stop those caravans that put people in danger and also that simply opening our borders in the long run is not the most loving act toward either those seeking to enter or those already here.  What the Democrats don’t understand is that religious laws are not political policies and by trying to use them to further a political or personal agenda suggests that it is they who are not following God’s teachings.

I heard many on the stage refer to climate change as an “existential threat.”   I’m not sure, but I think that using the word existential in this phrasing is not really correct.  I think what they want to say is that climate change is a threat to mankind.  They want to make that sound fancy, so they use the word “existential” but that word, while defined as “relating to existence” is specifically related to human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.  Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice.   So, I don’t really think that existential is the right word here.  As my middle school English teacher always said, don’t use a big word just to try to impress people if you don’t fully understand its meaning and its connotation.

Finally, the overall problem with all these candidates was summarized by Bernie Sanders when he said that “we can transform this country.”  I don’t think most people want the country transformed.  I certainly do not want the country transformed.  I want what it is to remain, but improve, as it has done and continues to do since its creation.  Trying to improve something that is less than perfect is far different than “transforming” it to something else.

The Democrats do not really like America and would change it to something else.  For some that something else is socialism.  For others it is something else that they may or may not articulate.  But for none is it a country that holds traditional American values including individual freedom and responsibility.  They would change our Democratic Republic, the shining star of freedom, into something fundamentally different.  And that is the most frightening thought of all.