With Howard Dean running the party and touring the country spewing venom like a rebellious adolescent, and Hillary posting herself-up for 2008, things look even worse for the likes of Senators Biden and Liberman.

The Dems have lost their unifying middle ground, and have become more polarized than ever in the history of U.S. politics, to my knowledge (they even look like two separate parties!). What was once the middle ground now is adrift and has, therefore, more affinity with independents and moderate Republicans.

My pet theory is that leftist Dems have never accepted their loss in the 2000 elections, and have perversely turned their wound into a campaign platform of perpetual victimhood, which has had the effect of demoralizing the entire party in the eyes of the voting public. This vanity and contempt, accomodating the far left Marxist-like elements of society as it does, along with Clinton lying to a Grand Jury and pardoning very disreputable figures on his way out of office, is destroying the credibility of the party from the inside-out.

True, but there are still some very nice people from the compassionate side of the world:

http://www.albom.com/morrie.htm

When over 1800 people at amazon review a film/book,
then you know something is going on. Here is another
suspected democrat:

http://www.nexuspub.com/articl...erview_july_2005.htm

The way is up, not left, but love conquers all!

With Howard Dean running the party and touring the country spewing venom like a rebellious adolescent, and Hillary posting herself-up for 2008, things look even worse for the likes of Senators Biden and Liberman.

Let�s not forget that these "crazies" have a lot political skill, public relations savvy, and scientific polling behind them. It�s perhaps a lot more premeditated than it seems. And one mustn�t forget that, at least electorially, the last presidential election was rather close � and that was with a rather weak candidate, John Kerry.

The Dems definitely want polarization. As Rush so skillfully points out, they make everything a crisis. If something isn�t in crisis then they will make it seem like it is. But, of course, compared to Utopia, everything is in crisis so they don�t really have to do much of an acting job.

Democrats are the party of the true Utopic narcissists and they simply must place blame on someone for the world not meeting their perfect vision. If 90% of the people are covered by health insurance than some devil out there is responsible for those 10% not being covered, never mind that perhaps the true miracle it is to have even 90% covered.

Like it or not, this is the world we increasingly live in, the world of progress and higher and higher expectations. And because of the effectiveness of science, this is a world that has reason to expect that progress should continue � at least there is no reason to believe that scientific progress will slow down anytime soon. But in terms of progress socially or economically, government decades ago reached the point of reduced, diminishing or downright negative returns, where X amount of dollars that government spent on Y was counterbalanced or completely offset by the new problem it caused with Z. So, in real terms, progress socially and economically is harder and harder to come by, at least in terms of government spending. But because the expectation of progress is there, and because there is no shortage of carnivorous demagogues among the Democrats, then at least the appearance of progress is often good enough to gain votes. Few ask these days (and few conservatives ask intelligently or effectively, but surely some do) if we are engaging in real progress or sham progress, and often enough mere motion is both assumed to be, and sold as, progress.

The Democrats are now, for better or for worse, an increasing leftist party, not a true liberal one. They increasingly have more in common with Karl Marx than with FDR.

My pet theory is that leftist Dems have never accepted their loss in the 2000 elections, and have perversely turned their wound into a campaign platform of perpetual victimhood, which has had the effect of demoralizing the entire party in the eyes of the voting public.

Good pet theory. Yes, they are surely demoralizing the party for it is a lack of good morals that is also sterilizing and dehumanizing the party. There is very little real soul left in it. Everything is a melodramatic circus act. All tears are crocodilian. Ted Kennedy, the drunken, crazy old sod, is one of their leading spokesman. Jimmy Carter, the wandering America-hater, is their elder statesman.

Remember, WC, that, at least in democracies, there is a very Darwinian "natural selection" symbiosis between electorate and the elected. That is to say that the Democrats do not just effect the mindset of the electorate (and they do do this), they also reflect it. More and more these days we meet people who are worrisome, not just because they may disagree with us (no harm in that), but who seems to have such a light grasp on the meaning of the words "facts" and "truth". We can disagree about how the war against terror is being prosecuted, but what does one say to the conspiracy-theory-minded who see nothing but a chance for profit for Bush�s oil buddies? As I�ve said before, I think this irrational level of distrust is brought on by information overload. Most of us simply can�t know what is going on so in order to counterbalance that we become naysayers. And there�s actually a very nice conservative logic to that. When in doubt just do as Bill Buckley says and "stand athwart history, yelling stop". Okay, perhaps liberals and leftists have put a slightly different spin on this. They stand athwart the present yelling "Haliburton".

The Dems have, especially in the last couple decades, been grooming the electorate to be as nutty, negative, and conspiracy-minded as the worst of them are. It surely doesn�t help that the left is, for the most part, indoctrinating our kids to be more sympathetic to Karl Marx than with George Washington. If this is so (and it sure appears to be so), the current state of affairs is exactly what you would expect. It�s not that the Democrats are cracking up, per se. They are just being who they really are. This is no longer a party that has room for a Zell Miller or Sam Nunn. It�s a party of leftist radicals and kooks.

Thanks for that analysis, Brad. It will be good to keep all those things in mind, now and for 2008.

I hear the leftist diatribe at work, and it truly is mostly irrational, emotionally-impacted crap. It never ceases to amaze how self-hypnotized these folks can be. I don't think I ever got that far down into the euphemistic sink-hole. But I'm trying to remember what pulled me out of it. Graduate school was the wake-up call, as I saw so many leftist professors reaming the you-know-what out of conservative-minded, intelligent students. It was blatantly unfair, but there was revenge and pride in it, like the profs were not doing the students a teaching favor out of constructive criticism, but appeasing a hatred that had to have those students as its object. The sadism was noticeable.

Just shows you how deeply we can become over-identified with emotions. Would you say much of this is also over-identification with the victim, such that a victim is always needed to perpetuate the bias? I think you allude to this above.

So what would happen in the mind of the leftist if the "victim," such as illegal aliens, were viewed as at least partly responsible? As it seems they are vicariously victims themselves, then their form of the Identity System (using Block's metaphor here) would be exposed as inexorably linked with its scorned opposite. Hence the need to remain washed-out in hypnotic emotionalism.

One of the truly laughable, and disgusting examples of the duplicity of the left is the carrying on by the Cindy Sheehan crowd, who now invoke the well-being of soldiers whose cause they scorn, as though in the soldier's mind the two can be seperated. There is simply no credibility, on any honest intellectual level, for this simpleton exploitation of grief. But as you say, the left mirrors its constinuency, and there is a growing demand for that neural anaesthesia.

Thanks for that analysis, Brad. It will be good to keep all those things in mind, now and for 2008.

It�s just my last ditch spasm of leftist critique before Hillary is elected and the doctor then advises me to give up political commentary due to the bulging veins in my neck that look ready to blow.

I hear the leftist diatribe at work, and it truly is mostly irrational, emotionally-impacted crap.

Read this article by Jay Nordlinger. You�re not alone.

It never ceases to amaze how self-hypnotized these folks can be.

Half the battle may be realizing that there are two things going on (well, two if you�re lucky): political analysis and social bonding. You�ve obviously heard some of the sheep baa. Guess which one people are often doing at the expense of the other.

The sadism was noticeable.

That�s a very good term for it. Ideally (hell, not even ideally�if ya just put even a half effort into it) the act of teaching will be an uplifting experience for both the students and the teacher. But indoctrination of the type imposed by leftist professors is more along the lines of rape or abuse of the mind. On display for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is the concrete acting out of "the ends justify the means".

Would you say much of this is also over-identification with the victim, such that a victim is always needed to perpetuate the bias?

By George, you may be right. Surely the victims (students) reminds the abusers (the professors) of how these abusers used to live and think freely before they were abused. Isn�t that the very definition of at least one kind of evil? Here is an opportunity to say "no" to perpetuating obvious hatred and bias and to rise above the harm that may have been done to us. To unconsciously pass it on may be forgivable, but it is hardly noble or heroic.

So what would happen in the mind of the leftist if the "victim," such as illegal aliens, were viewed as at least partly responsible?

It�s not really possible, by and large, for a non-white minority person to ever not be a victim. This is a core philosophy of the left and presently of liberals. That idea is embedded deeply and their whole ideology would (theoretically, at least�but logic is not really their strength) come tumbling down if it were discarded. The "first cause" is always white colonialism, slavery, abuse, sexism, or whatever. That�s just what they believe. All minority violence and crime is just a secondary cause, an "acting out." Now get with the plan, WC, or I�m gonna have to come over there and throttle ya.

Sam Nunn, Zell Miller and another retired liberal,
who's rhetoric was formidible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo

http://www.americanrhetoric.co...hes/cuomo1984dnc.htm

A couple on nice guys who probably were democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia

http://www.leobuscaglia.com

And an eloquent and classy intellectual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Cousins

Then there are John Paul II and the Quakers on the center left, but I'm digging real deep here...

Maybe at the state and local level, there must be someone...

I agree with w.c. that it takes at least five years post-college to recover common sense.