...A "Bowel Movement" to Remember

It has been said that the well behaved rarely make history. While the phrase was undoubtedly intended humorously, there is a note of truth to this. In fact, it's the ones that are different that we remember (for better or for worse). In fact, that is the single most thing that I believe makes America great: we can be different, we can dissent, and we can do so quite vocally. Then, I stumble upon this great irony...

"...any group that says I'm young, I'm democratic, and I'm a socialist is all right with me..."

Interesting... We have here "young", ok. I can buy that, it's a new generation, with new ideas, and new ways to make things work. Next we come across "I'm democratic". That I can also buy, and what luck, as they just happen to be (presumably) in the United States - in my opinion the greatest democratic republic in the world today. Lastly, "I'm a socialist". This is where one might run into a problem, as they just claimed to be "democratic". Princeton would define socialism as "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry." It would define democratic (democracy) as "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them." These two definitions seem to be inherently incompatible. In fact, the very idea of "democratic socialist" is so fundamentally split that the groups themselves cannot even precisely define what a democratic socialist is. These two political systems could never exist in full form in the same government. This is simply because the systems are inherently opposites.

The pinnacle of democracy lies in the procedure of elections. If we, as a people, do not have the power to remove a leader from power, they have no incentive to listen to the people, nor carry out their will. The whole idea behind democracy is that all voices are heard. That requires leaders not only to listen, but it also requires that these voices have methods to express grievances with their elected officials. The pinnacle of socialism is governmental control, as this is meant to eliminate "classes" and social inequalities. The socialist system would require leaders to stay in power indefinitely, as any leadership change would undoubtedly lead to an upset of the social system, thereby creating the very problem it set out to solve. Beyond these fundamental differences, however, lies the reason far more simple: there are people that are greedy. Why have all socialist states have ended in authoritarian control? Because when you put the state in charge of resources, there are those that will use those as leverage to ensure that they stay in power. With no recourse to remedy such an issue (other than a revolt) to remove the offender from power, the denizens of such a state are simply out of the proverbial luck. A democracy cannot exist where there is fear of repercussions over dissent. Socialism cannot tolerate dissent in order to exist. Quite simply, the two are just incompatible. But moving on...

"...Right now, we are living in a time that is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It is going to dwarf the internments of World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation...they are coming, they are coming after you. They are going to be brutal, and pressing..they are ripping off the mask of racism."

Please note, she is referencing "...this rise of this so-called 'Tea Party Movement'..." in her above quote. Now, she gives three examples. First, we have McCarthy, who became known for his claims of communists and socialist within the government. Though his intentions sound quite honorable, his methodology was far less so. In fact, his very name is an accepted reference to a tendency to "unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty." Is this "Tea Party Movement" unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty? Let's see here... We have "fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited governments, and free markets." As a matter of fact, the very mission statement reads:

The impetuses for the Tea Party movement are excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Nowhere in there is there any mention of accusations, nor is there any mention of any disloyalty. Simply put, the Tea Party Movement is there to encourage people to take action against perceived injustice. While there may be some argument that certain members of such a movement will accuse others of disloyalty, I'd quickly like to point out that it is a fray, and can be found anywhere. After all, it would be quite bigoted to identify all Christians with Westboro Baptist Church, nor would it be fair to identify all Muslims as extremists. Secondly, it's likened to an Internment Camp during WWII. Unfortunately, I still have yet to read the article where any Tea Party rally takes a hostage, nor have I even come across and article describing a Tea Party supporter "interning" another individual. Therefore, we must dismiss such a comparison as unfounded and purely inflammatory. Lastly, it is compared to the "Jim Crow" laws and segregation. Again, I still have yet to see any similarities between segregation and the Tea Party. In fact, despite slurs and other derogatory remarks from within their own races, many African Americans are starting to support the tea party movement. Is the Tea Party sending a message of segregation and racial inequality? No, in fact I cannot find even one mention of race in the tea party doctrine. Again, we only have "fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets." I fail to see any similarity, or even remote grounds for comparison. Hence, it must dismissed as another unfounded remark merely present for its inflammatory value.

"...this particular organization, Young Democratic Socialists, you do whatever you can in every way that you can and all of you devote more time to building this organization..."

By all means, if you wish to stand for something, then stand for it wholeheartedly. There are many that I disagree with, yet I respect, because of their willing to defend their beliefs even in an adversarial setting. However, in order to earn such respect, one must be willing to defend their beliefs with logic and reason, not just rhetoric (which it almost purely was, despite many claims of the opposite). There is no intelligence behind a "well, that's just what you think" defense. There is no thought behind it, nor facts. One could argue anything and be impervious to any dissent. This is not how real ideas are created. An idea is only as good as it's support, and in order to achieve that support one must be willing to defend, with reason, their idea. I have launched a rational, reasoned, and logical critique of Ms. Lewis' comments. Rather than just call my dissenters and their groups a "bowel movement", and use buzzwords to rile indignation, I have firmly stated what I believed, and why. Should ACORN ever wish to see your tax dollars funding again, perhaps they would be better off to employ a CEO who did the same.