2020 Democrats: The Anti-Responsibility Party

With great power comes great responsibility.  Or perhaps more accurately, with great freedom comes great responsibility.  After all, Americans, myself included, have had the freedom to engage in more activities as we have gotten older.

Some of these responsibilities date all the way back to early childhood.  In kindergarten, everyone had a right to play on the swings at recess, weather permitting, but if we did not stop using the swing when recess was over, we had to face the consequences of not using the swings for a day.  I should know.  That happened to me once. Everyone has the freedom not to do their homework. But by not doing their homework, students almost always face the consequences of a lower grade; either because the teacher gives them a zero on it or because completing the homework served as a vital step in preparing for a test.

Look at the consequences that Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and many others must face because they cheated in one form or another to help get their kids into college.  People who cheat in general also face consequences, although not necessarily legal repercussions. Plagiarizing politicians have not faced jail time for their dishonesty but they have seen their political campaigns derailed. In 1987, Joe Biden’s Presidential campaign effectively came to an end when it came to the surface that he plagiarized a speech from the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Neil Kinnock. Nearly three decades later, as appointed Montana Democratic Senator John Walsh sought a full term in the Senate, The New York Times published a story claiming that Walsh plagiarized a research paper he wrote during his time at the Army War College. Walsh withdrew from the race and his replacement lost by double-digits in the general election to then-Congressman Steve Daines.    

As I mentioned earlier, Americans generally get more rights as they get older.  At the age of 18, Americans get the right to vote.  Americans generally get to exercise that right unless they commit some kind of horrendous crime that lands them behind bars.  For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have agreed that people in prison should not vote.  That changed when Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders suggested that even the Boston Bomber, who took many lives and permanently altered the lives of many others, should have the right to vote.  A debate has taken place across the country about whether people should have their voting rights restored when they get out of prison.

At the age of 21, Americans gain the right to purchase and consume alcohol.  Most people that choose to exercise this right do so responsibly. But not everyone does.  Those who consume too much alcohol may end up facing the consequences of alcohol poisioning and hangovers in the short term and liver damage in the long term.  The same applies to smoking.  As laws across the country relating to marijuana have become more lax over time, smoking cigarettes has become a near impossibility due to its skyrocketing cost.  Smoking cigarettes has consequences in the form of lung cancer and a whole bunch of other ailments frequently documented in commercials.  In addition, it “stunts your growth, it yellows your teeth, and blackens your lungs,” as explained in the movie “Cops and Robbersons.”  While liberals like and hard-core libertarians like to portray consumption of marijuana as consequence-free, a book by New York Times reporter Alex Berenson makes it perfectly clear that the facts tell a different story.

These days, most young Americans elect to go to college upon completion of high school; assuming they can get in.  Students who elected to slack off during high school will likely have to face the consequences of receiving a bunch of rejection letters from the colleges and universities they applied to.  While Americans who attend public school spent the previous 13 years of their life going to school for free, that all changes when it comes time for college.  One way or another, students will find themselves directly on the hook for their college tuition and all of the other payments that go along with college; including room and board and textbooks.  Students have multiple ways to pay for their college education: take out student loans, devote every penny accumulated thus far from summer jobs and birthday gifts to their education, or if they get really lucky, rely on a full scholarship. 

However, many students end up having a hard time paying back the student loans when they finally do graduate from college for a variety of reasons; including, in many cases, the inability to get a job in their desired field. Knowing this, many 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates have lined up behind the idea of free college tuition. Because college comes at a price either immediately or down the road, students have an incentive to exhibit maximum effort.  That incentive will disappear if college becomes free.  In addition, while the financial problems caused by student loan will “disappear” for recent college graduates, all of the other variables will remain the same. College graduates who majored in women’s studies will likely still have a hard time finding employment even with “free college.”  Besides, under “free college,” the responsibility for paying tuition will not go away; the government will simply redistribute that responsibility to the American taxpayer.

Another freedom that Americans have the ability and opportunity to engage in as they get older, sexual activity, also has consequences that go along with it; both emotional and biological. Just like they want to erase the consequences when it comes to attending college, liberals have spent the past half century trying to erase the consequences of sex.  Strangely, liberals see pregnancy as one of the “consequences” of sex.  Most people from previous generations probably would have referred to pregnancy as the “natural conclusion” of sex. However, today’s feminism seem to encourage women to view pregnancy as a disease. Therefore, liberals see abortion as a convenient way to erase the consequences of sex.  If you don’t believe me, just ask Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. 

While Democratic politicians have not necessarily praised abortion as much as Hollywood blowhards like Michelle Wolf and Lena Dunham, they have signaled their support for the continued legalization of the barbaric procedure by attempting to change the terms of the debate. Hirono, who represents the most Democratic state in the union, claimed that she asked a group of eighth graders “how many of you girls think that government should be telling us, women, when and if we want to have babies?” No one in the government has any desire to tell women “when and if” they want to have children.  To paraphrase David Bowie, pro-abortion activists always have a “straw man waiting in the sky” to attempt and refute arguments against abortion. 

Senator Hirono, no one one ever has to have children if they don’t want to.  If you don’t want children, put your money where your mouth is.  Don’t have sex or refrain from sexual activity during the fertile window; which only lasts about one week out of a whole month. Liberals, many of whom have embraced hedonism as their official religion, seem averse to the idea of sexual responsibility. As Ann Coulter pointed out, liberals react to “the concept of sexual restraint like ‘The Exorcist’s’ Linda Blair did to holy water.’” It definitely does not help that popular culture does everything in its power to discourage people from engaging in sexual responsibility. 

Believe it or not, those hoping to see the idea of sexual responsibility returned to its former glory have found an unlikely ally in Alyssa Milano, the feminist icon who did everything in her power to derail the passage of Georgia’s heartbeat bill.  In response to the passage of the pro-life laws that have gotten Milano and Hirono bent out of shape, Milano called for a sex strike, saying “Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get our bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.” Pro-life activist Abby Johnson by sending out a tweet of her own signaling her “FULL support of pro-abortion women going on a sex strike.  Sounds great for our movement and significantly damaging to the abortion industry.” Johnson expanded further on her points in an op-ed for Townhall.

Those expecting the Democratic Party to follow Milano’s lead when it comes to sexual responsibility should think again. For years, a consensus existed that Americans who oppose abortion should not have to see their tax dollars spent on abortion.  The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, attempted to make sure of that.  Well, now the Democrats appear to want everyone in America to have to pay for an abortion.  The 2016 Democratic platform called for repealing the Hyde Amendment and the supposedly Catholic 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden has indicated his support for the idea as well. 

In another example of liberals’ attempts to make sex responsibility-free, Georgetown University Law School student Sandra Fluke became a national sensation in 2012 when she complained about the high cost of contraception that her and her fellow law students must pay.  Fluke’s testimony in front of a panel of House Democrats came as part of a larger conversation about the “conception mandate” in Obamacare that would force employers to provide birth control for their employees. As for the “contraception mandate,” the Supreme Court gutted that provision of Obamacare in the case Hobby Lobby v. Burwell two years later; siding with religious organizations who did not want to pay for their employees’ contraception, as contraception violates their religious beliefs. 

The Democratic Party has set itself up as the party of no consequences and has taken on the role of Santa Claus when it comes to healthcare, abortion, college education, and amnesty; promising all of the above for “free.”  As the media have completely bought into this philosophy, Republicans have their work cut out for them if they want to get their message out there.  All of this “free stuff” liberals promise does nothing but increase the size of government. Conservatives, on the other hand, value the concept of freedom over “free stuff” and see the exponential growth of government as the greatest inhibitor of freedom.  Liberals will surely push back on this and say that conservatives really don’t care about freedom if they want to place limits on their “reproductive rights.”  Conservatives should push back on that argument and say that government has a responsibility to uphold the natural rights of every human being, which include the inalienable right to life.

Less than 18 months remain between now and the 2020 Presidential Election, where Americans will get to choose between the “free stuff” party and the freedom party.  Undoubtably, many debates will take place between now and then that address the philosophical differences between left and right discussed in this article.  Let’s hope, for the country’s sake, that those debates do not get violent.