Two Simple Rules for Deciphering Democrats

Have you ever wondered why Americans keep voting for Democrats to “reform” something, or “change” something, and no matter how long Democrats are in office, the things they were supposed to “reform” never change for the better?

Whether it’s welfare, or taxes, or schools, whenever the Democrat party is running Congress, nothing ever actually changes. Take schools, for example. Everybody wants to “reform” America’s failing public schools. But, no matter what we tell the politicians, nothing ever seems to improve. Which is strange, because Americans know what good schools look like. There are plenty of excellent – private – schools around the country. Heck, even Democrat politicians know what good schools look like. Which is exactly why every Democrat politician (and every other Democrat who can afford it) sends their kids to private school. Private schools know what makes a good school: high expectations, accountability from students and parents, and student achievement as measured on standardized tests.

But when it comes to public schools, Democrats suddenly push for “reforms” that don’t have anything to do with expectations, or accountability, or quantifiable results. When it comes to Democrats and the schools other people’s kids attend, “reform” means full employment for unions that support Democrats. It means higher pay for the teachers' unions, regardless of results. It means more employment and higher pay for service unions, electrical unions, janitors unions and state employee unions. It means more money for the Federal workers union, the NEA, and all the union workers who tend to the Federal bureaucrats. “Reform” means hiring more union teachers, paying them more money, exempting them from accountability, and buying more Democrat votes and more Democrat job security. It’s simple. Democrats talk about “reform”, but what they mean is, “You keep me in office, and I’ll keep buying your votes.” It doesn’t matter that no Democrat “reform” has ever led to an actual improvement in education.

The reason is simple. Whether something has “improved” depends on the definition of “improvement.” And we can all thank President Clinton for making the following rules crystal clear for me. Just like it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Here goes. If you ask a Democrat whether education reforms have “improved” schools, the answer is yes. But we all know most public schools are worse than they were 20 years ago. So, what gives? Simple. We’re using the wrong definition of “improved.” BUT! If our definition is wrong, what definition are Democrats using? Puzzling, isn’t it?

To help everyone understand what Democrats are talking about, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules for Understanding Democrats:

Rule Number 1: If a Democrat favors a policy, it means the policy is designed to buy Democrat votes and make people dependent on Democrats, so they vote Democrat forever.
Rule Number 2: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO RULE #1.

Luke’s Rules work for EVERY policy Democrats favor. Let’s take a look:

Have you ever wondered how Obama’s “tax cuts” are going to “cut taxes for 95% of Americans,” when roughly 50% of Americans don’t pay taxes? And 97% of all taxes are paid by the other 50% of the population?

SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.

Obama’s tax plan is going to take taxes from people who pay taxes and give money to people who don’t pay taxes. DUH. It’s welfare. And Democrats love welfare. But why do Democrats love welfare? Everyone knows welfare was a total failure until it was reformed by Republicans in 1996. Right?

SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.

Everybody knows the welfare system failed to get people out of poverty. But, despite the fact that Democrats held a majority in Congress for almost 40 years straight after welfare was made into law, Democrats never reformed it. Why? BECAUSE welfare wasn’t designed to get people out of poverty. It was designed to buy Democrat votes. Which it did spectacularly well.

So, the next time you hear a Democrat hold forth about how some new Democrat policy is great, or how some Republican policy is awful, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules and you’ll immediately understand what they’re talking about. It works every time, for every Democrat policy.

Thanks for reading.

L.

What Used To Be

"There is a bastard kind of generosity, which, by being extended to all men, is as fatal to society, on one hand, as the want of true generosity is on the other. A lax manner of administering justice, falsely termed moderation, has a tendency both to dispirit public virtue, and promote the growth of public evils."

There used to be an appreciation for the kind of moral clarity that encouraged people to make the distinction between true generosity and the "bastard generosity" Thomas Paynedescribed in 1777.  Query, whether "bastard generosity" is even properly definable as "generosity" and, if not, what purpose is being served by confusing it so?  Who benefits by defining profligacy, waste, and moral decay as generosity?