Democrats In Name Only | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

Democrats In Name Only | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

Democrats In Name Only

Tue, 11/26/2013 - 12:15pm | posted by Matthew DesOrmeaux

A frequent epithet thrown around on the right is “RINO!,” Republican In Name Only, meaning that the target calls themselves a Republican but isn’t ideologically or even tactically dedicated to the party’s platform. The irony is that the such intraparty purity tests distract from the real political target: DINOs, Democrats In Name Only.
Over the last few years, our friends on the left have become increasingly brazen about how little they value actual democracy. They may be called “Democrats”, but their latent fetish for (benevolent?) autocracy and fascism (minus the mass graves…mostly) belies the name. Just last night the President “joked” about eliminating the legislative branch of our government, and on cue his Volk brayed and whinnied at the idea:
This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed it goes back to the Progressive Era and its incestuous relationship to the fascism movement in Europe (“Progressive Party” would really be much more honest and accurate today). In the left-sourced media machine, it’s always Republicans who are practicing the goose-step routine for their planned dictatorship.
Yet reality seems to always be the exact opposite. Even ignoring the ample historical evidence of what fascism actually was, modern Democrats create plenty of new examples by constantly both implicitly and explicitly pining for more centralized power, whether its transferring state power to the federal government, legislative power to the executive, or just doing away with the deliberative process altogether in favor of more “efficient” despotism.
That is not to say that President Obama himself wishes he himself were a dictator (despite his constant “joking” about it to the contrary). Instead what he (with the help of past administrations) has setup is an administrative autocracy as explained brilliantly by Kevin Williamson of National Review:

But the United States is not going to fall for a strongman government. Instead of delegating power to a would-be president-for-life, we delegate it to a bureaucracy-without-death. You do not need to install a dictator when you’ve already had a politically supercharged permanent bureaucracy in place for 40 years or more. As is made clear by everything from campaign donations to the IRS jihad, the bureaucracy is the Left, and the Left is the bureaucracy. Elections will be held, politicians will come and go, but if you expand the power of the bureaucracy, you expand the power of the Left, of the managers and minions who share Barack Obama’s view of the world.

You see, health care “reform” wasn’t. Not legislatively. The text of the law, impossibly long as it may be, has very little specific reform or detail. That was left to the bureaucracy, “as the Secretary shall determine”:

In an important sense, the American people have no political say in the health-care law, for example, because Congress did not pass a law reforming the health-care system; instead, Congress passed a law empowering the Obama administration, through its political appointees and unelected time-servers, to create a new national health-care regime. The general outline of the program is there in the law, but the nuts and bolts of the thing will be created on the fly by President Obama and his many panels of experts.

The same goes for the Dodd-Frank financial “reform,” EPA regulations, even the tax code, which is constantly subject to IRS self-determination. So many of the rules that govern our lives now aren’t up for a vote anymore. And by design. Democrats in their unflinching un-democratic ways have setup a perpetual motion machine in the federal bureaucracy, with the requisite arrogance that they won’t be out of power long enough for anyone to stop it.