As an adjunct teacher of American Government, we became accustomed to a very centrist political view in certain respects. The Democrats are more the party of the many, and the Republicans the party of the few. When concerned with partisan interests, the few are oligarchs, while the many uphold the good not of all, but of the many and not the few. And when they are being good, each view the common good in a different respect. The virtue of the Democrats is more compassion for the poor, while the Republicans is more a concern for the things of honor and ethical virtue. Hence the Democrats are more ethically liberal, though less likely to sacrifice the natural good to artificial virtue. Both pertain to the common good, and either, the few or the many, are preferable to the other when the other aims at a partisan interest.
I have been very impressed with Ben Carson lately, but the biggest question I have about his campaign is his view of the Democrats. In the campaign pamphlet Dr. Ben Carson: He Will Heal Our Broken Land, about three and four pages from the end, a number of things are said about the Democrats that sound not like facts but like interpretations, and we wish to challenge the Run Ben Run committee to support these statements. Do the Democrats really reject the view of America as good, seeing it rather as the source of all the problems in the world? Or is this not a partisan spin on the concern that America admit our flaws and not cause harm or do injustice in foreign policy? And do the Democrats really believe in diversity rather than unity under the ideals of the Founders, wanting to transform America into a socialist utopia ruled from the top down? And is Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer, really the one influence on the theory of the Democratic party? Or is this not literally a demonization of rather more garden variety differences regarding the common good? Do they really “seek an ideal that has its roots in the French Revolution? And are they the ones lately teaching that the “ends justify the means? Do they create rage against the successful, promote racial divisions for political gain, set workers against employers and the old against the young? Are there no examples given because this is just an interpretation of facts that might as easily be explained as Democrat policies, when the Democrats won the elections? Is the Obamaphone an illicit gift to buy the votes of the poor, or an attempt to help those below the tech line from slipping out of the economy completely because they cannot keep up with the rich in the new tech age? And to prevent the disappearance of the middle class, when most become trapped below the line of being able to afford the equipment necessary to hold a job? And do the rich not arrange the technological and internet world without regard for the poor or anything other than profit? Would the Republicans do anything at all about health care if they were not attempting a counter proposal?
Ben Franklin invented the first fire department. Today’s Republicans might call this socialism. But the fact is that there are some things better carted for by the city, like a fire department. Let each put out his own fire, and like Social Darwinists, we will look for the selection of the fire conscious, and the lucky. Health insurance might be one of those things better cared for in common, if we can do this in the right way. At some point, it becomes a matter for the common good to not have people starving or lacking clothing and shelter. Let the “capitalists” each educate their own children, and call public education socialism. The fact is that our nation was founded before capitalism was even thought of, and while the free market is, industrial capitalism is not a part of our constitution. We would not even think of ourselves as “capitalist” were we not taking our political language from Marx. But I would be very surprised if our Democrats were really indistinguishable from French Revolutionaries or violent revolutionary Marxists. We ought save these terms for when they mean something, and this is the problem with demonization: The real thing walks right by while the conservative wastes his breath on a false opponent. The view of Ben Carson of the Democrats and Barak Obama is, again, the most serious question I have about a candidacy I still support. We await an explanation of these two pages of the campaign literature.