By Dave Andrusko
I’m trying to be objective–and actually the evidence of the disintegration of the pro-abortion Democratic Party is so obvious it makes it easy to just lay out the facts, one, two…two hundred.
Let’s start, so to speak, off topic. George Q. Daley is the new dean of Harvard Medical School. But an interview he gave to Carolyn Y. Johnson of the Washington Post is deeply representative of the Party of the Opposition.
The headline is, “Harvard scientist worries we’re ‘reverting to a pre-Enlightenment form of thinking.’” I mean, please. Let’s be a little original.
His topics meant to indict “pre-Enlightenment form of thinking” include embryonic stem cells. But the point is not a disagreement (and complete misrepresentation by Johnson) over the history and lack of success of embryonic stem cells. It’s just a hook to say that if the Trump administration disagrees with the likes of Dr. Daley on issues most people would never think of as about “science,” it means (to quote Johnson)the “White House seems not only indifferent to research, but also actively hostile to some strains of science.”
No, they just differ. And the point is simple this. It is so reminiscent of the pro-abortion Democrat mindset which is determined to believe that it is irrational (at best) to oppose them.
The debate last night over who will chair the Democratic Party Committee aired on CNN was a perfect illustration of how far removed from the American public Democrats have become. The candidates, for the most part, tried to outdo each other on who hated President Trump the most, who would best lead the Resistance, and who was most adroit in interpreting the results of the last election as a kind of aberration, a mere hiccup.
The supposed leader, pro-abortion Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, concluded that 34 days was enough of Donald Trump. Time for….
“I think that Donald Trump has already done a number of things which legitimately raise the question of impeachment. . . It’s about the integrity of the presidency. So yeah, I think we need to begin investigations . . . to protect our Constitution and the presidency of the United States.”
Another, an even more telling illustration, was another debunking of the “demography is destiny” mantra. ”Among Democrats, it became common wisdom that a ‘rising American electorate’ of nonwhite voters, millennials and single women would mean long-term Democratic majorities,” wrote Lanae Erickson Hatalsky and Jim Kessler in a piece for the Washington Post.
“But since the halcyon days of 2009, Democrats have lost one-fifth of their Senate seats, one-quarter of their House seats, nearly half of their governors and more than half of the state legislative bodies they once controlled.
“The Trump win was the final, not the first, indignity.”
Their essay explains why headline rings so true: “Why demographics weren’t — and won’t be — destiny for Democrats.”
From our single-issue point of view, we would add what is–or ought to be–obvious. The party’s leadership is old, set in its way, highly skewed to the most liberal/radical areas of the country.
They do not represent Middle America, which is very pro-life, don’t want to, and (Hatalsky and Kessler to the contrary notwithstanding) don’t believe they need “fly-over country.”
But they do need us. Their race to the bottom will only pickup speed until they realize the public is not in Planned Parenthood’s corner, but ours.
Support for abortion on demand may play well in Nancy Pelosi’s California congressional district, but not in the overwhelming majority of CDs across our great land.
Keep an eye on the battle for DNC Chair. The outcome could well be the proverbial canary in the coal mine.