Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 29, 2008

A major tenet of leftist philosophy is a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Leftists generally are against individualism and identify more with groups. They generally believe collectivism is a better way to attain our common goals than with individual efforts and no one can deny that in some instances organized collective effort is best. One should bow to the collective wisdom to attain the common good.

Let's apply this philosophy to the current situation within the Democratic Party. We have 2 individuals running for president. Only one of them can become the nominee. It is rapidly becoming the prevaling wisdom within and without the party that a protracted primary campaign will become, and to many minds has become, damaging to the parties chances of winning in November. With every day that passes the Democrats are providing more and more fodder for future Republican commercials.

So why hasn't one of these candidates capitulated? Isn't that the proper thing to do for the "common good" of the Democratic Party? Mrs. Clinton, by just about every metric, cannot win the nomination without creating a significant schism. Why doesn't she concede? And Mr. Obama, he's relatively young and even though he has a slight but insurmountable lead, he could use some additional experience; why not agree to become Mrs. Clinton's vice-president? He could then run for president 8 years hence, several years before his 60th birthday.

The Republicans, that band of darwanistic individuals, seem to be much more civilized in this area. They traditionally rally around the putative favorite early on. This cycle was a bit more contentious than usual, but in the end they came together and much sooner than the Democrats, in no small part due to their winner take all philosophy in the primaries.

When it comes to coveting power, the Democrats are a level above the Republicans. The Republicans are just as capable of abusing their power. One need look no further than the Republican run congresses since 1994 to see how power can be abused. Or President Bush and the expondential expansion of presidential power for which he has been responsible.

But there's one difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe power is their birth-right. How can it not be? Their whole reason for wanting power is so they can make your life better. After all, they know what's best for you. They're not in this for themselves. It's all about making sure you're better off. And they're happy to take advantage of others in the society to accomplish that goal. They are therefore deserving of power.

There's not a penny's worth of policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Either one is fully capably of implementing the Democratic Party's quasi-socialist agenda. So the reason neither one will give up is simply this; their thirst for power is infinitely greater than their concern for the integrity of the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy in politics is unavoidable.