Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Clause, but He Don’t Belong to No Political Party

America will not be saved by (or with) Democrats or Republicans. Political parties are the waste pile of humanity, and they are the true robber barons of “the people.” Not only that but they are either uneducated or mostly just lie about the record. Maybe both—who knows who cares.

Republicans are the demons. Demons are always subtle, sly, and starched of mind (stiff and cowardly). Democrats are fools and dolts. By paraphrasing the below attribution of Socrates and replacing “young people” with “Democrats” the perfect description for Democrats has the Socratic touch.

The young people (DEMOCRATS) of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour (sic) and dress. – Socrates

It should not be difficult to find a similar Bartlett’s offering for the Republicans and with a bit of verbal deftness that clumsy bunch of Lincoln deifiers could have their own Socratic evocative. And, for the 1000th time, it is a choke deep within the larynx to call Republicans, republicans.

It is even worse to label Republicans as conservatives. Democrats: Like cow patties. They are useful only after falling from a dark hole and hitting the ground. They should rename themselves, The Nitrogen party. Get it?

It is reprehensible to hear T.V. commentators with their mostly ahistorical-speak, speak in an historical context about the “two” parties. It is as if one party was handed God’s free world and the other was handed Satan’s handiwork of mischief. It depends on the channel, of course, as to which is which. And each commentator has, himself, a choice of which party is which.

These commentators take on many personalities. However, those like Brian Kilmeade take on amateurish historical cloaks as if they are moonlighting as historians. However, the sunlight exposes their work as ahistorical. They usually have offered up nonsensical histories which get praise from lesser lights like Douglas Brinkley.

Insofar as original and primary text are concerned these two low wattage lights shine as B-Movie and comic book historians. Otherwise, the record is wrong? Abraham Lincoln was not an uncultured, dishonest and mediocre political hack? And Frederick Douglass was for freedom for all except those black enslavers of blacks enslaved and taken to America; one of whom likely would be an ancestor of his? And, of course, Douglass’s bravado for psychopath John Brown would be like Martin Luther King having cheered on Charlie Manson. Not so?

And Lincoln did not cause an illegal war which resulted in 600,000 American deaths? After all, he was our “greatest” president. Glory, Glory, Hallelujah. Thou Shalt Not Kill, Abe.

These ahistorical concepts are the gift that keeps on giving for the vote-seeking hacks or the T.V. personalities, both. Most of them are usually chattering and capturing cleverly misused words like “exponentially” or turning “impact” into a verb because they have been too lazy to learn the words “affect” and “effect.” This may seem off subject but it is the same nonsensical thought-process that creates these false histories (always best sellers off of cable T.V.–how could they not be?) of America and sell them to the public. And ALWAYS with a leaning toward a POLITICAL PARTY.

Usually, it is the “Demons” (Republicans). Not that the “Dolts” (Democrats) wouldn’t do it, but they seem to have been groomed and enlightened by the rogue inabilities of semi-literacy. They write little, and what they do write is trite.

The “Demons” read more, but understand perhaps even less. For example, calling the “Dolts” the party of slavery is as preposterous as Joe Biden counting to 10 and having only 6 or 7 numbers to show for it. “C’mon Man.” And, that business about the Republicans forming a political party to free the slaves? Yeah, free them in order to repatriate them to Africa; or keep them in the South and out of the new territories. This was, of course, Mr. Lincoln’s cry from his holy mountaintop.

The Republican political party was built from the bones of the “Whigs” and the ilk of the “Know-Nothings.” The Republican party had as much interest in freeing blacks as Henry VIII had in freeing Sir Thomas More. They were anti-slavery, not pro-free blacks.

So what? Nothing, except these two blundering highly financed clubhouses of politics and political self-interest have no more interest in “we the people” than Judas had in Christ. Judas stumbled over self-interest in that he thought the King would redo the world in the image of man.

The politicians of either party have made the Declaration of Independence their Judas by calling this declaration a “founding” document. This is of course the political bilge that old “Honest” Abe spewed in his nonsensical (see H.L. Menchen ) Gettysburg Address. Nothing was founded (of any significance) in the year of our Lord 1776, notwithstanding Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Certainly, no “nation” was founded around the American neck of the woods. The only thing “found” was that the British sovereign state found itself separated from its covenantal connection to 13 of its American colonies. Period.

The point is: this is the sort of political spittle that political party minds like Lincoln’s spat out. It isn’t their fault. It is simply the hot air that political parties grow from. Unlike plants which thrive on manure for nourishment, political parties are manure and simply stink and spread disease.

These political party hacks (both “wings”) are the people’s Judas-modern, believing that they can lead the people in freedom, prosperity, glorious foreign wars, and social safety under their own king whom they label as “The leader of the Free World.” This, of course, is the President of the United States (once a republican union of states) whom they also often mislabel as The Commander-in-Chief of the country. He isn’t, constitutionally, but that’s what these party types and their half-witted, half-educated media associates and contributors call him. The Republicans destroyed the truth-of-the matter under the guise of prestige on what they label as “the world stage.” The Democrats, like their mentally inept political rival, tag along with the political party response–“okay.” Then, hoping to get hired at the ballot box themselves add, “But we can improve on stupid. Vote for us.”

The president is, supposedly the CIC of the military (when it is in service according to the Constitution). But what the hell. Truth stinks with this bunch (political parties), anyway. But that is almost an aside, relative to the nonsense these party fellows believe. Much of their nonsense is often written in their best-selling books (via cable marketing for the best-selling bit) about historical and political matters, analyzed with abstruse clutter or inaccurate explicit clutter. If there are any footnotes at all for sourcing, they are disarranged ahistorical toe jam.

And both, though the Democrats less and less with their juvenile sisters of the squalid or squadron or whatever, always drop their analysis on what they pretentiously pretend to know and/or care about: “The Rule of Law.” The truth is, anyone who has read but a modicum of accurate text on Western and American history can see that most of these clowns don’t know the difference between King George and King Ahab. Certainly, they know little of the long-knotted rope of law built over time between the two.

For a brief record, political parties in what is now the U.S.A. have their roots in discussions about the structure and disposition of the modification (which became an entirely new document) of The Articles of Confederation. The idea was to have a confederated republic with the sovereignty to the states and being in confederation for the common defense, commerce, and common economic currency. The political parties arose when factions around Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians began a tug of war between a federal republic (Jeffersonian) and a national state (Hamiltonian). The scions of party affiliation began, unfortunately, by the claiming by the Hamiltonians as The Federalists. The Jeffersonians became the Anti-Federalists, not because they opposed federalism but because they were opposed to the Federalists (who were truly anti-federalists). Confusing? Political parties in the U.S.A. were born leaving the afterbirth of confusion on the operating table. They have kept the waste until this day.

Sadly, or more to the point, intellectually dishonest or mindless, a vast collection of so-called “conservatives” who are wont to praise and/or be part of the Republican party constantly juxtapose themselves as positive to negative against the Democrats whom they label as slavers, socialists, racists et political blather. The Democrats had their origins in the Anti-Federalists. They continued right through the “Era of Good Feeling” and into the birth of the Republican Party and kept sailing from there.

But no, the Democrats were not the party of slavery. Neither were the Republicans. There was no such thing. The oddity is that only those attached to the Demons or the Dolts make such foolish ahistorical remarks i.e that one or the other party was/is the party of slavery.

The demonic Republicans claim righteousness for “we the people” in the usual nonsensical Abraham Lincoln bilge i.e., freeing the slaves as well as his religious styled language of the Gettysburg Address. The narratives about his goodness and godliness have no end it seems.

The fact is that Lincoln was a tyrant. He suspended habeas corpus, authorized mass arrests of political opponents, disfranchised and intimidated voters in border states, and he committed “total war” (with his Henchmen Grant and Sheridan) to destroy the South. Under no circumstances did he support equality of the races, and, in fact, desired to send former slaves to Africa. And his meetings with Douglass in 1863, were due to complaints by Douglass of ill-treatment of the new blacks in the army and their being positioned upfront usually as no more than cannon fodder. Their meeting in 1864 was Lincoln’s concern over his reelection. Lincoln never changed his mind on the disposition of blacks—he wanted none in the new territories and preferably they should be repatriated to Africa.

This man is the fellow whom the Demons claim is their conservative founder. Not the modern “I love the NAACP and BLM—now vote for my party” bunch.

More irony? The Democrats, though no “founder” of slavery had their beginnings with four such luminaries as Jefferson, Mason, Madison, and Henry. Today those bitter old white fools have been cast aside by the bright sparklers known as “The Squad.” Or something like that. Hmmm? Four of them, too.

Yep, Virginia. You done seen Santa Clause. But watch out that the Christmas tree don’t catch on fire. Political parties are like children with matches. Or Brian Kilmeade with a history book. Dangerous.

Image by Archives New Zealand via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

*************

Paul Yarbrough writes novels, short stories, poetry, and essays. His first novel. Mississippi Cotton is a Kindle bestseller.

His author site can be found on Amazon. He writes political commentary for CommDigiNews.