The Big Tent

So, how can it be that a political party is able to find so much support amongst a citizenry whose collective interests are clearly not being served? Is the Democratic Party willing to sacrifice national security for unbridled individual liberty? And is that the major appeal of the individuals it attracts?

I submit that the success of the Democratic Party is due to “The Big Tent” approach to politics. The Big Tent Approach works for two reasons. First, the Democrats make a concerted effort to appeal to everyone. As you can imagine, many are excited about the prospect of belonging to any group that will have them. You know them, I know them, and the Democratic Party most certainly knows them.

The second reason for the popularity of the Big Tent Approach is the complete and utter ostracization of those who do not choose to join the Democratic circus. Those who are not politically correct enough to support the myriad liberal causes are labeled “Right-wingers,” or religious fanatics, or Republicans. All are considered to be One And The Same. This, of course, makes it easier to target them, to identify them as “outsiders,” and to give the more clever Democrats a neat and tidy demographic onto which they can unleash their not inconsiderable rhetoric. I doubt that it’s occurred to them, but this “broad brush” approach is kind of like declaring war against all fish without considering how important fish are to the ecological system, how fish are an important staple in the diets of a great many people, or how there are a tremendous number of fish in the sea who are extremely capable hunters themselves.

Curiously, no one in the Democratic Party ever seems to acknowledge (or care) that it is more difficult to serve a thousand masters (the Democratic constituency) than it is to serve a single voice (Constitutional law). What is it they used to say about trying to please everyone? Not to fear: The Democratic Party will listen to absolutely anybody’s opinion, as long as that opinion isn’t religious in nature (or, heaven forbid, evangelical).

If you are not in the Big Tent, you are portrayed as a zealot and all-around party pooper. So says the Democratic Party, and this message is endlessly repeated in their personal echo chamber, the “mainstream” media. What do you suppose they would find if they were to investigate the Democratic demographic?

I’m no journalist, but even I was able to find out a few things about the Democratic demographic. Although it is hard to nail down, the evidence suggests that their “hardest” core constituency
consists of non-white, manual laborers with a grade school education and a Union card. If they participate in an organized religion, it is usually Catholicism. This is a very narrow view, however, I'm pretty sure that there are Republicans somewhere who are clever enough to use these few descriptors to paint all Democrats as toothless rubes -- or, say, Luddites -- if they really wanted to.

But I digress...

We know that the Democrats' constituency occupy a “Big Tent,” as they like to say; full of every manner of American. OK, so, shall we pretend for a moment that we are committed members of the mainstream media intelligentsia and take a peek under that canvass?

For starters, it’s a good thing that liberals value the individual; in the Democratic Party each constituent is unique -- just like everyone else. Under the Big Top you will find Idealists, Socialists, and Environmental Extremists mingling with Trial Lawyers, NAMBLA and the NEA. On stage in the middle ring there is Blame America First warming up for Big Government and the Entitlements (whose chief talent seems to be the ability to sing songs that have no apparent end). The Anti-Gun, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty-yet-Pro-Choice crowd have gathered ‘round. Meanwhile, the Gay Marriage Lobby is dancing with Judicial Activism while Class Warfare and Affirmative Action are having a wildly animated conversation nearby. Big Labor is here, small but stentorian (like Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher and Al Franken). Status Quo is talking amiably to itself -- about “Change” (the same as last year, and the year before that, and the year before that). The Demagogues and the Obstructionists are in a heated argument, although both sides are staking out the same position (much like the Journalists and the College Professors). The Global Warmists are trying to keep cool by fanning themselves with falsified data. Illegal Immigrants and Convicted Felons are crowding at the doors, clamoring to get in. “Soon, soon,” they are promised. Meanwhile, the ACLU is making a point of ignoring the posted occupancy levels.

Did I leave anyone out?

As you can see, there is a place for practically every special interest inside the “Big Tent.” Really, all you have to do is put your own particular self-interest(s) ahead of national interests -- that is, focus on the “small picture” -- and you’ll be made to feel right at home. Indeed, critical thinking is best left at the door.

One last thought, or two, on the Democratic Party:

During the 1972 Presidential campaign, Governor George McGovern of South Dakota was the Democratic candidate. He spoke of “change”:

“We reject the view of those who say, ‘America – love it or leave it.’ We reply, ‘Let us change it so we may love it the more.’”

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama reportedly said:

“My fellow Americans, we are the greatest nation on earth, and here I am, sincerely, asking you to help me change it.”

These simple statements, for many, sum up the true feelings of those on the Left, encompassing the notion that they can not and will not love America until she is remade in an image and an ideology that they would choose for her. This would, naturally, include a big, “Nanny State” government –- Socialist, of course -– with a “living” Constitution that is as broadly interpreted as it is pliable; quotas, subsidies, and entitlements, with the attendant class warfare rhetoric built right in to rationalize any sense of shame or embarrassment resulting from being a recipient of wealth redistribution schemes; an embrace of secularism, because, again, if we remove Religion from the equation we can also reduce or eliminate any kind of shame or embarrassment associated with so-called “aberrant behavior”; and, we wouldn’t do anything without reaching a global consensus, which of course, means we wouldn’t do anything, period, because such a consensus would be impossible owing to our penchant for letting the tail wag the dog.

So, there would be no more Wars, no more Rich or Poor -- though we would ostensibly be “rich in Love” -- no more Hunger, Disease, Famine or Pestilence. Global Warming would go away, as would Guns, the Death Penalty, and Prison Overcrowding. Animals and Trees would have the same rights as humans, and America would have the friendship and respect of the entire planet.

Of course, Capitalism would die (at long last). Why work if you don’t have to? Critical, objective thought would have no place in our society, and since there would be no real reward for risk-taking we could say goodbye to Innovation. Advances in Medicine would die on the table and Agriculture as we know it would wither on the vine. So too, by extension, would Productivity and any meaningful GDP.

But all is not lost: We would eventually discount outdated notions such as self-reliance, perseverance and accountability, and instead ask what our country can do for us. We wouldn’t have to concern ourselves with foreign policy, either; we would soon become the milquetoasts of the world and have policy dictated to us. But, hey! We’d all be living under the same Big Tent, so how bad could it be?

Democrats themselves don’t really stand for anything tangible; rather, they are poseurs for virtually everything, with standards that evolve and adapt as the time and situation dictate. In short, they are Opportunists, willing to promise whatever it takes to acquire and maintain power. But it doesn’t seem to matter; the important thing is -- always, always, always -- the Party, and everyone is invited into the Big Tent, absolutely no questions asked other than, “Can we count on your vote?”

Our Declaration of Independence tells us that we have a right, and a duty, “to alter or abolish” any form of government which becomes destructive to our inalienable rights, and it exhorts us to institute a new government, laying its foundation on those principles “that shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.” I happen to think as old Ben Franklin did, that our republic may not be the best form of government, but that it is the best that has ever been tried. I also think that a Party or an ideology that tries to serve a thousand masters is not only ineffective and foolhardy, but also dangerous.