The Boy Who Cried "Wolf"

I can’t say that I put a great deal of thought into the following descriptions, but something just occurred to me in a Mitt Romney-style epiphany. While I have been convinced for a while that the Democratic Party has little chance of winning next year’s presidential voting and I have been sure since last year’s elections that the Democratic take-over of Congress was only an anomaly, it was only tonight that I put my finger on why exactly these phenomena prove true.

You see, I am becoming convinced that the Democratic Party, as it stands today, is a flash-in-the-pan party of impulsive, wannabe-revolutionary ideals.

And this type of stature stands weakly against the Republican Party as I now perceive it.

Here is what I mean. And, as a note, when describing the “current” Democratic Party, I am referring to the Left as it has been organized since about the time that Howard Dean has become prominent.

This current incarnation of the Democratic Party seems to rely on continuous rallying around singular hot-button issues. They take a sole issue and attempt to use it is as a release point to begin a revolution. And, in some aspects, they are successful. However, it is not a strategy that will allow them to continue long term victories.

For example, the rallying issue for the Democrats during last year’s elections was simple: the Republicans are bad. They took this single issue and incorporated entire campaigns on its foundation. This year, the cry for revolution is about the same, but maybe twofold: the Iraq War situation and “global warming.” They hope that these topics will be enough to fire up their constituency.

The Republican Party seems to take the opposite strategy. We depend on individuals who stoically pound on the same principles that have represented the Party for years: lower taxes, national security, and strong morals (derived from, but not dependent upon Christian beliefs).

To me, the Republicans represent the "establishment." The Democrats, on the other hand, are the "movement kids." They want to be revolutionaries. Their failure is that revolution depends on several dynamics to be successful and they are lacking in these areas. Revolutions require monumentally strong leaders. And while there are some Democrats that have been successful, I see none that are able be so on such a grandiose level. Furthermore, revolution also depends on the constituency being decidedly unhappy with the status quo. And while the Left would argue otherwise, I see this unhappiness lacking.

Sure, there are plenty of Americans that want to see the war in Iraq ended. They want to see change in certain areas. But overall, I genuinely feel that the typical American is much too satisfied with his current lot to begin rioting in the streets any time soon.

And herein lays the dilemma for the Democratic Party. Do they truly believe that Americans will rally against the establishment because of the method in which Republicans deal with “global warming?” The Democrats want American citizens to perceive the nation in dire straits. They want to convince citizens that our nation is teetering on crisis. Our healthcare system is beyond repair in its current state, they claim. However, they are patently wrong and I truly think that common sense Americans will see through these deceptions before they hand over any further ground to the revolutionary fatalists that now constitute the Democratic Party.

There will always be groups of Americans who get fired up by these ideals of drastic change. Drastic change, however, is not currently needed. The Republicans have the luxury of depending on staple American principles without having to descend to petty discussion-of-the-moment antics to build their campaigns. Democrats know that on the whole, Conservative principles have done this country well. They only hope that their sideshow tactics will cause enough dissent for people to be duped into voting them into office.

The Left’s stances on abortion, gun laws, taxes, national defense, et al are wrong. So they will attempt to circumvent these shortcomings concerning issues that have always been important in the hope that you will vote for them because of their stances on issues much more impulsive. To their dismay, they will find that the American people are much too intelligent to fall for such weak devices.

In other news, I have an update to my last BLOG concerning Second Life. As mentioned before, there is a Republican “Headquarters” in this virtual world. At this Republican Headquarters, there has been polling stations available to weigh support for the current Republican Presidential hopefuls. Yesterday, I received an email updating the current results of these polls. Users were asked to choose which candidate they would most like to see represent the Republican Party in 2008. While Fred Thompson was not an available candidate (thus leaving me to choose John McCain), it seems that the net-savvy Conservatives really dig Ron Paul.

Here are the current standings as of July 14^th, 2007:

Ron Paul - 57
Rudy Giuliani - 37
Mitt Romney - 20
John McCain - 17
Duncan Hunter - 10
Mike Huckabee - 9
Sam Brownback - 5
Jim Gilmore - 5
Tom Tancredo - 4
Tommy Thompson – 3

Maybe not a terribly important development, but interesting nonetheless. Take it for what its worth.

Thanks.