Friday, October 22, 2010

Liberal Organizations Betray Their Members

By Alan Caruba

As we head into the home stretch leading to the November 2nd midterm elections, one factor getting very little attention is the way that liberal organizations have failed or betrayed their members, starting with the Democratic Party.

Even a brief look at the Democratic Party provides a reminder that it stood against civil rights from the days of slavery, giving rise to the Republican Party whose first presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, who had to preside over a Civil War to end it.

The Democratic Party has managed to serve up some truly awful presidents from Woodrow Wilson to FDR who prolonged the Great Depression with his policies, to Lyndon Baines Johnson whose Vietnam policies filled cemeteries, to Jimmy Carter’s bumbling, to Bill Clinton who used the Oval Office for sexual dalliance, to the current White House resident, Barack Obama, whose diminishing approval ratings are testimony and an indictment of his incompetence.

In a similar fashion the National Association for Colored People has demonstrated in the years since the Civil Rights movement that it is little more than a liberal platform for some of the worst bias to be found, including that expressed against African-Americans. It was quick to denounce Shirley Sherrod, the former head of the Department of Agriculture’s rural development office in Georgia. The organization then claimed it had been “snookered” by a video that purported to show Ms. Sherrod expressing bias, but it had failed to conduct even a cursory investigation to defend her.

Lately the NAACP issued a resolution denouncing the Tea Party movement as biased, claiming that it is rife with “racist extremists.” Its president, Ben Jealous, said “We take issue with the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements” but there isn’t a shred of evidence to support such blatant nonsense.

The NAACP has conveniently forgotten that it was a former Republican President, George W. Bush who elevated two African-Americans to the position of Secretary of State, one of whom, Colin Powell, had previously been endorsed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush.

Another liberal group, the National Organization of Women, have become famous for failing to defend or support women who have become vocal advocates of conservative issues despite their rise to national recognition as authors, talk show personalities, and as political leaders. The result is a lopsided babble that largely ignores the enormous strides women have made across the political and social spectrum.

Few women running on the Republican ticket running for public office these days have a NOW endorsement. The California chapter has actually endorsed former governor Jerry Brown and is backing Sen. Barbara Boxer for reelection. This reflects most of the NOW chapter endorsements.

It is an extreme irony that one of the most hated women in America today was the first to have become the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Her name alone is enough to incite cross-over votes.

It can be argued that these two national organizations do not reflect the views of either the African-American community or that of women, but both have been around long enough to command attention and to have been thoroughly infiltrated by liberals oblivious to the role conservatives have played in advancing their goals.

We may well see a sea change among their membership, large scale defections, as they confront the reality that Democrats and liberals have long since taken their support for granted.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

6 comments:

MMM said...

Wow! Mr. Caruba, you "nailed it" today. Thanks. I read your blog everyday. It keeps me politically sane.

Alan Caruba said...

@MMM. I write to keep myself sane!

Thank you.
AC

cmblake6 said...

And you perform exceedingly well. The sanity reflected in your dissections can not be faulted. Their betrayal of their own base is blatant. How is it their core remains loyal? This is beyond my understanding.

LarryOldtimer said...

My being a civil engineer, I know that it is important to understand the meaning of technical terms.

Democrat: A person who desires to replace our written constitutional republic with a democracy, which would mean 50% + 1 rules, or . . . mob rule. Democracies are the weakest form of government, and easiest to overthrow. There can be no long term consistancy of government policies or laws with a democracy.

Republican: A person who desires to preserve our form of government as a republic with a written constitution, with protection of minorities, political and otherwise.

I wondered, as a lad, why the Union didn't follow through after freeing slaves, also not allowing "Jim Crow" laws to exist.

Well, this nation lost more than 600,000 KIA during The War Between the States, and had been bled dry by that war. (We lost about 250,000 KIA during WWII, in comparison.) The Union was devoid of strength and purpose.

Most people don't realize that there were 2 Russian revolutions in 1917. The first was to overthrow the Tsar, and institute democracy, and that revolution succeeded. For a very short while, Russia had a democracy.

After that, it was quite easy for the Bolshevics to overthrow that democracy, and institute communism in its stead.

Had not our only geographical neighbors been extremely weak ones, Canada and Mexico, this country would not have survived as a sovereign nation following The War Between the States.

Thanks, Alan, for another excellent blog.

Alan Caruba said...

@cmblake6: There is no end to fools to fill the ranks of liberal organizations. Otherwise they would not exist. Most have the maturity level of an infant.

Ronbo said...

For the last couple of years I’ve been puzzled over what type of snake oil Comrade Obama was selling. I discovered elements of communism, fascism and socialism in my analysis of the deadly poison, but I couldn't isolate one particular theme, so I've called Obama's actions at different times as being communist, socialist, Nazi, Islamist, or fascist in various publications.

Then I read this article by P.J. O'Rourke and discovered "Obamaism."

Obamaism is the ultimate evolution of totalitarianism so well illustrated by George Orwell in his best seller Nineteen Eighty-Four. Obamaism is all about hate and domination of mankind by an elite “Inner Party” that uses an “Outer Party” of community organizers, journalists, teachers, union thugs, etc. as middle level management to control the public by means of indoctrination, propaganda, and numerous types of force.

The more successful of these “Outer Party” managers in their mission of tyranny are moved up into the ranks of the elite “Inner Party,” whose members scan the personnel ranks of the "Outer Party" looking for "talent" like the young Obama and then shape them into the monsters of their design.

The oligarchy of power has arrived in the land of the free.