President Eisenhower once said, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the cornfield.” My father, who spent much of his life farming, would have wholeheartedly agreed. From a distance, a lot of things seem easier than they truly are. Today, it feels like the Democrats are keeping a safe distance from reality, as their party platform seems increasingly detached. Recent polls suggest their popularity is on par with head lice, and their leadership is so ancient that when they cough, dust comes out. Their so-called young politicians make Che Guevara seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison.
And now, they’ve even lost “The Nation,” a magazine that’s as left-leaning as it gets. Jeet Heer, a writer for the publication, has raised concerns about the challenges the Democrats are facing. In theory, the Democratic Party aims to gain power and implement an agenda. In practice, however, they resemble a hospice more than a political powerhouse. Many of their leaders are so aged and frail, they seem to be knocking on death’s door. Former President Joe Biden is a prime example, with recent media buzz surrounding his health issues and allegations of a cover-up by his inner circle.
Heer suggests that the Democrats’ devotion to seniority only highlights a bigger problem: they have no unifying ideology or principles. The party is a mixed bag of centrists and progressives, struggling to define a clear goal. Even anti-Trump sentiment, which once held their divided factions together, is losing its grip. Trump’s victory over Biden has left them demoralized, and some key figures in swing states are eager to stay in MAGA’s good graces. It’s becoming harder to pinpoint what Democrats collectively believe, contributing to their waning popularity, even as Trump’s own ratings decline.
The issue isn’t that complicated, really. We know what they stand for, and it’s simply misguided. The Democrats are united by one overarching belief: control. They are collectivists at heart, and history shows us that collectivism leads to subjugation and loss of individual freedoms. Just look at the Soviet Union, which crumbled under its own centrally planned economy. China has managed to survive by reluctantly introducing some free-market principles.
In contrast, nations like the United States thrive on economic freedom. We experience ups and downs, but our standard of living remains high because we value individual choice. We want to make our own decisions about how to raise our children, what cars to drive, where to live, and how to enjoy our leisure time. This is what the Democrats don’t grasp, and it’s why they’re faltering.
Robert Heinlein, an author I admire, once wrote about political labels not being the core issue. He believed the world is divided into those who wish to control others and those who don’t. The former group, although acting from high motives, often ends up imposing their will. Meanwhile, the latter group, though perhaps more skeptical, makes better neighbors. Heinlein’s view resonates with those who prefer less government interference.
All politicians have some level of desire to control; that’s the nature of governance. But we know the type Heinlein was warning us about. Jeet Heer likely understands this, even if he won’t say it outright. It’s clear which type of person I’d rather live next to. Heinlein also noted that some folks think “mediocre” is better than “best,” delighting in limiting others because they can’t excel themselves.
He pointed out that those who lack intelligence often despise it in others. A quick look at videos shared by leftists online confirms his observation. They often seem to revel in mediocrity, unwilling to acknowledge the value of exceptionalism.
The radical left continues to push its agenda, but it’s crucial to support efforts that counteract these movements. By standing firm, we can preserve the principles that have made our country great. This moment calls for a renewed commitment to the ideals of freedom and individuality.
