Democratic Party and Radicalism

If we acknowledge that a radical is one who seeks to make change in the fundamental institution of our government then the Democratic Party has become the party of radicalism. At what point in time they became this party of radicalism I will not attempt to declare. It really does not matter when it happened, what matters is what will the people do now and whether they want this change. Furthermore, if the people actually want to change the fundamentals of this government then what will those who do not want change do?

The groundwork and foundation for this change has already been put into place. This occurred when the concept of a living Constitution became an acceptable ideological means to be used to interpret the Constitution. Without the use of this concept, radical change would not occur without an amendment to the Constitution. With its use the Constitution can be interpreted in any manner the judge deems fit. This, in essence, places political ideology above the Constitution.

Now, before I go any further, I wish to make one thing clear. I do not believe that whoever came up with the idea of a living Constitution had radical changes in mind. I just believe that it is a tool for radical change and it has been used very effectively. Furthermore, I believe that the changes that radicals seek will result from the use of this tool.

Which political party is an advocate of the use of this theory for interpretation of the Constitution?

Now, does the advocating of this theory in and of it itself declare the Democratic Party as being radical? No it doesn’t. Will I say that the Democratic Party has always been considered as being radical? No I won’t. This is a verily recent change in the party.

What has changed is their philosophy towards society and the role government has in society. What has changed is the tactics they use in order to gain the seats of power in this nation in order to bring about these changes that they seek.

A radical knows that power goes to two poles, one who has money and one who has people. We must remember also, that we are talking about the minds of people here. The radicals who control the Democratic Party now have both. Moreover, it is my belief they feel they have the man to lead this country and bring about these radical changes in the person of Barrack Obama.

The fact that both, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party have endorsed his candidacy for President would be the first clue. It would be hard to believe that these two political parties would endorse someone unless they believed that he would serve their political purpose of fundamental change in our way of life. There can be no doubt as these parties’ desire to change this way of life.

There is also the matter of his tax policies. He has openly admitted that they are for the purpose and intent of income redistribution. This is often called the Robin Hood syndrome. There is one problem here though. Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor because he believed that taxes were too high not because he felt that money should be more evenly distributed. In other words, he was returning to the poor what they had earned and he felt would be theirs if not for the high taxes.

Then we come to his association with others. He has surrounded himself with what can only be called radicals, some so radical as to use criminal means of violence to advance their political agenda. This is not an allegation. It is a fact. This is known to be a fact because they have confessed to it after they were set free by a court of law.

The last thing to consider is the tactics being used to regain power that is perceived in the office of the Presidency. They are the tactics of radicalism. These tactics have become more prominently used since the 2000 presidential elections and the Democrats feel that it was stolen from them by the Supreme Court decision.

Now, is this just some conspiracy theory? Based upon what I have written it could be seen and judged as such, this I’ll admit. It may be that it is just that too. Only the future will tell. There is far more to my idea then what I have written in this post. Blogs are not the best medium to use when making a claim such as this. It doesn’t easily allow for detailed explanations.

I do know one thing though. You do not have long term working relationships with people you do not agree with in regards to the desired results of that work. You do not continue to accumulate long term relationships with those persons whose agenda are the same as each other but is not the same as yours. That is just human nature at work. Obama would have you believe that he did though. How would you explain his ability to defy human nature?