Dear Sane Democrats…

Article by Derek Hunter in "Townhall":

Dear Sane Democrats,

As a conservative, I have some questions I’d like to ask you. I don’t mean this in a hostile way at all. I’m genuinely curious about the answers, even if some of them are phrased in a way that may come off as hostile or offensive. I assure you, the inquiry behind each of them is serious, and I’m hoping some of you might be able to help me understand what you’re thinking.

We always hear the political left tell us, “It’s time we have a serious conversation about” whatever it is Democrats want to push at that moment. But every time a conservative tries to engage in that “serious conversation,” it immediately devolves into demands for acquiescence or name-calling. This might work with other leftists, as evidenced by viral videos of liberal adults kneeling to activists and apologizing for their “white privilege.” But conservatives have self-respect and a brain, not to mention coming in all colors of people, so that’s not going to happen. A person’s life is what they make of it – a lifetime of telling people they can’t succeed because of the color of their skin is going to have an impact. Everyone fails. Everyone falls down. How you handle it and get back up determines your life’s direction…unless you let something else determine it for you.

When teachers, civic and religious leaders, and politicians tell someone from an early age not to try, that they can’t get ahead no matter what happens because of something beyond their control, what impact do you think that has on a person? When they get yelled at or fired (as we all do) or don’t get a job they wanted (as we all do, too), will that idea beaten into their heads since birth that it’s the system keeping them from what they want -- rather than the idea that there might’ve just been someone better suited for the job, or maybe they just weren’t very good at that particular job -- ever occur to them? If it’s the latter, they can work to improve themselves. If it’s the former, you can see why people get angry, give up, and blame “the system.”

And, consequently, vote for Democrats.

Democrats have perfected the ability to be both responsible for a problem and simultaneously claim to be the solution to that problem.

What do I mean by that? I’ll use the failed Democrat-controlled public education system to illustrate my point.

Wouldn’t you think that, after generations of complaining about the “school to prison pipeline,” someone should look into the school part? If there’s really this pipeline feeding minority children into prisons, rather than letting people who’ve broken the law out of prison, maybe reform the institutions feeding them into prisons in the first place?

Of course, to do that you’d have to actually want to educate minority children so they could improve their lives on their own. With complete Democratic Party control for 50 to 60 years in most of these areas, you’d think that thought would have occurred to someone. It has, obviously, but it hasn’t resulted in action for some weird reason.

In fact, the best thing to happen to kids trapped in poor-performing schools – charter schools – are in the crosshairs of the Democratic Party; set for sacrifice on the altar of campaign contributions from teachers’ unions. The very same people who’ve failed to educate kids are sinking the lifeboats. Isn’t that a problem? Of course, it is.

Speaking of problems, isn’t it weird to you that people are being given two choices: complete submission or destruction? When a United States Senator’s call for restoring order results in a revolt and claims by adults that their lives were literally put in danger by that thought, isn’t that insane? People are being murdered and beaten to a bloody pulp just because they are police officers or oppose the violent riots. But printed words are “violence”?

When the New York Times apologized for running Tom Cotton’s column, Democrats exposed themselves yet again. In their rise to power, the Nazis in Germany would attack and destroy their critics. What’s the difference between that and Democrats now? That’s a serious question, and the only answer is there isn’t one.

Anger is a convenient delivery device for otherwise unacceptable actions – keep people angry and they’re likely to do things they otherwise wouldn’t. Your average Target shopper wouldn’t pummel someone and run out with a TV, and a calm person wouldn’t throw a brick at a police officer or beat an elderly woman standing in front of her business. An angry one convinced they’re a victim of an irredeemable system set up to keep them down will.

The ironic part is most people won’t end up being rich, regardless of skin color. Poor and poorly educated people of all colors won’t substantially improve their financial station over their lifetime. They’ll also have more interactions with police. Minority children are told it’s because of their skin color, white kids are told it’s because of capitalism – the rich people are keeping them down. The method changes slightly, but the objective is the same – vote for Democrats.

The modern Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of even a few years ago. Personal issues aside, Bill Clinton couldn’t win the party’s nomination today. John F. Kennedy – who was pro-military, anti-communist, and cut taxes to stimulate the economy – wouldn’t even be invited to attend, let alone speak at their convention.

What does it say about a party where opinions are considered violent and dangerous and literal violence is not? Where Al Sharpton, who has a body count in his wake, is considered a leader? Perhaps no one personifies the corruption of the left more than Sharpton, who has literally gotten rich claiming to be working for the poor.

Of course, you know all of this. You just likely don’t think about it. The dots are all out there, but connecting them doesn’t happen when fear and hate are hurled constantly, so you don’t.

People are so thoroughly conditioned to think the system is rigged that they don’t realize the people telling them this lie have somehow beaten it. All those celebrities bailing out violent rioters became wildly successful and rich in that very system. How’d they do it if it’s impossible? Left-wing leaders, from Sharpton to George Soros, from Barack Obama to Elizabeth Warren love to talk about their humble beginnings as a way of gaining credibility with the people they’re manipulating. But they’re all rich, very rich, and powerful. If they could do it, why can’t others? If the system is truly rigged against people like them, how’d they beat it? Are they special or super-human?

The truth is the system isn’t rigged. They aren’t special. They are the exception only in the amount of wealth and power they’ve obtained, not in the fact that they’ve obtained it. But that truth is counterproductive to their agenda. Rich liberals who’ve climbed the ladder of success aren’t interested in encouraging others to ascend it. They’re trying to pull it up. They won’t be impacted financially by what they advocate, they’ll be empowered for the rest of their lives.

I know, a lot of this might be things you’ve never thought of before or have a viscerally negative reaction to. That’s to be expected. But as you watch people you probably respect declare words "violence" while dismissing actual violence, or people who’ve succeeded beyond imagination declare success is impossible for people just like they used to be, how does that compute?

Might it be there’s something else at play here? Might it be that life is what you make of it? That the education system isn’t so much working to instill the tools of success in kids, but rather perpetuate the political philosophy that funds it for its own benefit?

I’m just trying to start that “serious conversation” we always hear people want to have. I didn’t even get into the data showing the idea of police murdering unarmed black men for sport or with regularity is garbage, nor did I mention that most people would absolutely be in favor of reforming police unions to make it easy to punish bad cops. That could have happened, and it still might. But it won’t in the context of “defund the police.” That’s crazy and a non-starter.

The Democratic Party hijacking the killing of George Floyd for the November election squandered what was, perhaps, the greatest pile of unity and goodwill anyone could have ever amassed. When they let their militant wing run wild, likely out of fear of it turning on them, while declaring every white person (except them) guilty, set the tone for two weeks of destruction.

Solutions aren’t the Democrats’ objective. What does it say about a party that benefits more from the escalation of a problem than its solution? Again, I’m just asking questions. I would like to have a serious conversation, as I suspect many of you Democrats who mainly vote for Democrats because you’ve always voted for Democrats or you think Republicans are somehow the problem, would like to as well.

I’m game. Maybe we can find a way to agree to change the policies that killed George Floyd and the education system and culture that led him to a troubled life in the first place.

Then again, if you don’t see a problem with these last two weeks, think the death and destruction are justified in any way for some perverted form of “justice,” maybe sane Democrats don’t exist anymore.

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/06/07/dear-sane-democrats-n2570181