The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

I have been a Republican all my life because the Republican party actually stood for certain principles.  The party stood for small government, free enterprise, but first and foremost it was an anti-slavery party.  The party was founded in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin.  The first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln. After the Civil War, it was Republicans who past the Civil War Amendments that acknowledged the citizenship of blacks, their right to vote, their right to equal protection under the law. Had not the Democrats undermined the effect of these amendments with their Ku Klux Klan and their Jim Crow laws, we might not be having the racial divisions we have today. Thus, it is surprising to me that the majority of blacks today vote exclusively for Democrats.

AS discussed by Mike Conrad at the American Thinker yesterday in an article entitled What Really Makes Democrats and Republicans Different, the fact is that the Democrats have no principle except winning at all costs. For example why would the LGBTQ etc community make common cause with Muslims? Muslims who want to establish Sharia Law would kill Gays under the same Sharia. For that matter, Muslims are opposed to abortion in all but the most restricted cases, yet Democrats are pushing for abortion on demand up through and even post birth. How do these two groups make common cause? But these are the kinds of groups that are gathered under the umbrella of the Democrat party, as detailed by Conrad.

The Democratic Party today embraces sharia-compliant females — à la Brooklyn's Linda Sarsour and Minnesota's Ihlan Omar — along with hyper-feminists and LBGT constituencies.

The Democrats also embrace expansive abortion rights and seem to be moving to the point of legalizing abortion up to the minute of birth. New York State has legalized such a broad definition.

ronically, Islamic countries and culture are notoriously restrictive with abortion and lethal to any LBGTs who fall into their hands. So why would practicing Muslims, such as Mmes. Sarsour and Omar, attach themselves to the Democratic Party?

How do the two of them reconcile Islamic culture's honor killing, repression of sexuality, and mutilation of women with the Democratic Party's acceptance of sexual deviance? Likewise, how does the Democratic Party reconcile these ladies' embrace of a retrograde creed?

...snip...

There are other issues. How does one reconcile extreme green politics (which crushes business) with promises of good-paying jobs for union workers?

This is the weakness of the Democratic Party. It is a jumbled mess of constituencies that are objectively hostile to one another.

Conrad claims that the problem of objectively hostile groups is a weakness. But then, as his article makes clear, the Democrats have been playing this game for over a hundred years. Seems to me that maybe it isn't a weakness at all. What the Democrats have discovered is that most their voters are concerned with their own lives, and don't really pay attention to what other are doing.  And it doesn't hurt to have the media on the Democrats' side.  So, a Democrat candidate can speak to a group of factory workers in New Jersey about raising the minimum wage and screwing the capitalists, then speak to a bunch of feminazis at Oberlin College about expanding abortion.  Probably a number of the workers enjoy hunting and shooting, while most of the feminazis support gun control. 

Due to a combination of limited attention to things that don't immediately affect their lives, and the tendency to believe things that confirm their biases, most people remain unaware of the fact that all these promises can not possibly kept.

Indeed, this ability to promise the moon and then blame their opponents for their failures has worked so well, that Republicans find themselves often in the position of being the more effective managers of their unconstitutional policies.  If only someone would for once stand up for that scrap of parchment called the Constitution.