Thursday night on Martha MacCallum’s FOX News show THE STORY –- after the first Democratic “debate” but preceding the second one –- I was asked about the stunning change in the Democratic Party over a relatively short time. That premise echoed the comment from a reader that came in to my website Thursday evening…
“As I ‘try’ to watch the Democrat debates, I feel sick that one of these people could be the next President of the United States. What has happened to our nation? How can they have these views?”
Even many Democrats share Bobbie’s concern this time around. Of all the candidates, the relatively obscure John Hickenlooper seems to be the only one actively advising against using the “socialist” label. Keep in mind, though, that the main difference for 2020 is that this time, “progressives” ADMIT they are essentially socialists who want to remake America so the government runs everything. Democrats have traditionally wanted the government (as in, themselves) to run everything; they just didn’t call themselves “socialists.”
For example, presidential candidate Barack Obama shared the goal of today’s socialists of having a government-run, single-payer health care system. It’s just that he needed an interim step to get there, and Obamacare was designed to be it. (We might not know this if someone hadn’t captured his candid remarks on video.) Today, after a run at the failed system, Democrats feel free to campaign on the single-payer idea. And, as they find themselves competing to see who can go the farthest left, they’ll expand coverage to illegal immigrants and even, according to candidate Julian Castro during Wednesday night’s “debate,” abortion services for the trans community. Very important to get that in.
Castro said he wasn’t just for “reproductive freedom” but for “reproductive justice.” People on the left have a lot of cryptic terminology; everybody's supposed to know the exact distinction between these two terms. But from the context, I gathered that “reproductive freedom” refers to choice in one’s decision to terminate a pregnancy –- even during or slightly after birth –- while “reproductive justice” refers to getting those services for free. A leftist would say that not getting something you want because you can’t afford it is “unjust.”
Anyway, Martha introduced our segment, which also featured former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile, with a few clips from Wednesday night’s “debate” --- I always put “debate” in quotes, because these things are nothing like actual debates --- to show how far left the party has gone. And it’s true, they are very, very far left, though some still employ euphemisms and code words while in campaign mode, especially regarding abortion. Elizabeth Warren, however, was blunt: “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control; it includes abortion; it includes everything for a woman.”
That’s when Julian Castro tried to outdo her: “Just because a woman --- or, let’s also not forget someone in the trans community [big applause from audience], a trans female --- is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose.”
This is such a complex subject that I think perhaps even Castro was a little mixed up. I’m pretty sure that in his eagerness to one-up Sen. Warren, he said “trans female” when he meant to say “trans male.” A “trans” female is biologically male and does not have female reproductive organs and therefore is NOT going to be facing the choice of whether or not to be pregnant. No way, no how. Now, a “trans” MALE is and has always been biologically female, and –- if too much biology hasn’t been altered by hormones and surgery –- might possibly get pregnant. That’s what is going on with those silly tabloid stories about a “pregnant man.” It’s not really a pregnant man; it’s someone with female chromosomes who lives as a man but who got pregnant. That’s the reality, albeit ridiculously complicated.
But in Progressive World, a man pretending to be a woman can pretend to need coverage for abortion. Does that mean the taxpayers “pretend” to pay for it?
Goodness, getting into all this, I really share Bobbie’s dismay at where we are politically in 2019. Donna Brazile tried to put a smiley face on it, saying that in the Democratic Party, they have “a diversity of opinions, a diversity of views and, of course, a diversity of candidates.” I would agree that the stage featured a lot of diversity, but only in terms of gender and ethnicity, not so much of views. A government run by any of them and their minions would be essentially the same.
Martha played a couple of clips from 2008, with candidate Hillary Clinton saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (“and by rare, I mean...rare”) and candidate Barack Obama saying that “there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can’t have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.” Recall that both of them also claimed to be against same-sex marriage. Amazing.
As I told Martha, we’re seeing a dramatic shift in the Democratic Party. The first night’s “debate” was almost like an auction; let’s see who can outbid whom in the most left-of-center approach. That may work in the primary, but I truly believe there are a lot of Democrats who are uncomfortable with the party going this far left. Even before now, many have said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party --- the Democratic Party left ME.” If the Democrat primary keeps going the way it is, I think a lot more will be saying that in 2020.
Donna stressed that the Democratic Party is all about “solutions.” (I have to put that word in quotes, too, when a Democrat uses it.) That’s what I’m afraid of --- too many “solutions” with far, far too many unintended consequences.
She did admit that “this is a different party.” That’s for sure. “I mean, I’m a different person than I was 10, 20 years ago,” she said. “This is a different party,” she repeated for emphasis. “I’m just trying to explain to the FOX viewers and others that this is a very important period in our country where they want to see the Democratic candidates debate all these issues.” She said that Democrats might ultimately choose a more moderate candidate (right) or perhaps “someone further to the left than I am.” The good news, she added, is that they are having the conversation.
Hey, that’s just what Kamala Harris says whenever she’s asked a politically risky question: “I believe we should have that conversation.” The senator from California is in a position to gain a lot in these “debates,” as she, a former prosecutor, is articulate and fearless. I’ve seen her go too far to her prosecutorial side in Senate hearings, treating witnesses with undeserved disrespect. But right now, she’s obviously trying hard to be cool and likable. Don’t be fooled; she’s a leftist wearing a big campaign smile and she would very quickly take the country to places we do NOT want to go.