• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

In Sen. Jim DeMint’s new book, “Now or Never,” he boldly states, “The differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties are irreconcilable: There can be no compromise between collectivism and freedom.” How refreshing that a U.S. senator has the courage to speak the truth.

I totally concur with Sen. DeMint’s position. The vast majority of Democrats are not interested in truth. They are not interested in logic. They are not interested in helping others. And they certainly are not interested in upholding and defending the Constitution.

Even so, it would be a mistake to believe that all Democrats are evil. In fact, there are many liberals in both parties who sincerely believe their policies will help those whom they see as being “in need.”

So if it is not evil intent that drives them, what is it? I believe it’s false perceptions spawned by faulty belief systems. One’s belief system is a result of his upbringing, education and personal experiences. If an individual’s belief system leads him to embrace the premise that wealthy people are heartless and insensitive to the needs of others, that they routinely exploit and oppress those who are most disadvantaged, he is also likely to assume that capitalism is a tool of oppression.

If, on the other hand, an individual is brought up in an environment where he is taught that the average person can succeed through the application of hard work and perseverance, and he confirms this through his own study and experience, he will perceive capitalism as a tool of liberation.

Which brings us to opinion. When we give our opinion on a matter, what we are really giving is our perception of a past, present, or future event. The event itself is not an opinion; it is a fact. But how we perceive a fact is an opinion.

For example, if a family of six lives in a one-room house with one bathroom, that is a fact. But if someone believes that such a family has a right to a larger house, that is an opinion. The only fact involved here is that the family lives in a one-room house with one bathroom.

If 50 million people agree that it is morally valid to take from those they deem to be rich and give what is taken to those they deem to be poor, that is the opinion of 50 million people. But having more people agree on something does not make it a fact. In this example, the fact is that wealth has been stolen from certain people and distributed to certain other people, and assigning a different name to this action (e.g., “taxation”) does not change the fact that a theft has occurred.

Thus, different belief systems cause different people to perceive the same situation differently, which is at the heart of the dichotomy between progressive and conservative perceptions.

When viewed in this light, it is much easier to understand why someone like a Barack Obama would want to redistribute wealth. Obama is undoubtedly sincere in his belief that it would be a good thing to bring the wealthiest among us down to the level of those who are least well off by redistributing wealth. You and I may believe his opinion to be warped, but that is our opinion.

Like everyone else, Barack Obama’s perception of a just society is based on his upbringing, his education and his personal experiences. Though the media refused to vet him when he ran for president, it is common knowledge that he had a tragic childhood – a childhood that, as Dinesh D’Souza explains it in his book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” justifiably made him a very angry person.

Shortly after his birth, Obama was abandoned by his alcoholic, polygamist father. Later, his mother virtually abandoned him as well, and he was left to be raised by his philosophically far-left grandparents. In his book “Dreams from My Father,” he describes his chief mentor as “Frank,” who most believe to be Frank Marshall Davis, the American communist who lived in Hawaii during Obama’s formative years.

I’m sure if you examined the upbringing, education and personal experiences of Harry Reid, Cass Sunstein, Chuck Schumer, Attorney General Eric Holder, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, et al., you would understand why they harbor belief systems that perceive an all-powerful centralized government whose main function it is to punish the rich and redistribute wealth to be the only way to achieve a just society.

For this reason, I am in total agreement with Sen. DeMint. The belief systems of the vast majority of Democrats are so hardwired into their brains that they reject, out of hand, any legislation that proposes to reduce the size of government, cut spending, eliminate regulations, or allow “too much” freedom.

The perception of Democrats is that the Republican Party has been “hijacked” by the tea party, while the perception of Republicans is that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by far-left extremists. These perceptions are nothing more than opinions, but, make no mistake about it, they are irreconcilable opinions.

The only hope America has for returning to its roots as a nation based on individual liberty and a government whose only legitimate function is to defend and uphold the Constitution is for libertarians and conservatives to have the courage to speak out against the absurd notions of bipartisanship, “working together,” “finding common ground” and compromising with the enemy – meaning the far left.

DeMint is right when he says there can be no compromise between collectivism and freedom. Nor can there be any compromise between right and wrong, moral and immoral, or constitutional and unconstitutional. It’s time to get serious about taking back America.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.