Thursday, November 02, 2006

 

Elite Opinion & The Democrats

Contemptable

Patterico catches New York Times reporter Kate Zernike in a blatent lie in paragraph eighteen of the article about the controversy:
Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, "Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." In his delivery, he dropped the word "us."
This is Kerry's actual quote:
You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.
It seems the New York Times is about as honest as it is patriotic.

I don't believe Kerry's explaination, either. Why was he defiant at first? What's with the differing explainations? Why did he take two days to release the text of his intended comment? Also, consider this:
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.
In his excellent analysis, Victor Davis Hanson correctly characterizes Kerry's gaffe as 'one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology.' Hanson concludes:
The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.
I also agree with Mark Steyn:
I find the Derb/Jay line, agreeing that Senator Kerry was making a joke about Bush, highly implausible. If you talk to Democrats of the middle-class and upper-middle-class and (in John Heinz Kerry’s case) the neo-Gulf-emir-class, you’ll have heard the same thing a thousand times: these poor fellows in Iraq, they’re only there because they’re too poverty-stricken and ill-educated so they couldn’t become Senators and New York Times reporters and tenured Queer Studies professors like normal Americans do. That is, in fact, what they mean by the claim that they "support our troops": they want to bring them home and retrain them so they’re not forced into taking jobs as Bush’s torturers and thugs. It’s part of the same condescension as describing soldiers as “our children”. If a 22-year old intern wants to drop to the Oval Office broadloom, she’s a grown woman exercising her freedom of choice. But, if a 28-year old guy wants to serve in Iraq, he’s a poor wee misguided Grade Six drop-out who doesn’t know any better. John Kerry’s soundbite is interesting not because it’s the umpteenth self-inflicted wound by Mister Nuance but because it gets right to the heart of the Democrats’ "support" for the troops
Kerry's gaffe -- that he revealed his true feelings -- is emblematic of why, unlike Bill C, I DO fear the Democrats: They are party of elites who have absolute contempt for the common man, expecially with regard to his opinions.

In his review of David Lebedoff's book The Uncivil War: How a New Elite is Destroying Our Democracy, Stanley Kurtz wrote:
Deep down, these sophisticates take their intelligence and success as proof that their anti-traditionalist world-view is right—and that those who see things differently are both ignorant and mistaken.

A laudable democratic desire to ensure equality of opportunity prompted us to make tests like the SAT a decisive determinant of success; an unintended consequence of this change has been to create an elite that is suspicious of democracy itself. Democracy depends on majority rule, but—without quite admitting it—our elites have lost faith in the wisdom of the majority. They think they're smart enough to decide what's right for all of us. These elites don't realize that most political decisions depend on values, not intelligence. Their unshakable faith in their own intelligence leads them to mistake their own imperfect preferences for the truth.
This sums up John Kerry and Democratic Party pretty well. This country's elites, predominantly Leftist in orientation, have indeed lost faith in the wisdom of the majority. One need look no further than their use of the judicial system -- thus circumventing the democratic process -- to enact their agenda for an example of this.

Which is why I disagree with a couple of my blogmates about whether or not Democratic control of the House or Senate would be good for the country. It would not be. Simply put, the Democrats are the party of tyranny; they cannot be trusted with power.

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?