I was born during the Truman presidency, and I have seen both Republican and Democratic administrations at the White House. The current Democratic Party symbol of the donkey just simply does not match the spirit of today's party. The donkey is a beast of burden, and a reliable support for getting work done. This stubborn spirit was seen best in the words of President John F. Kennedy:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "
That kind of spirit is not around nowadays in the Democratic Party. They don't care about liberty. They only care about getting power by getting elected. They put their finger to the wind, closely watch the polling numbers, and choose their actions accordingly.
Victor Davis Hanson writes an article describing this behavior. An excerpt:
"When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.
But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.
So why not come clean about their changes of heart?Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.
Bob Novak has written another article as an example of this behavior with respect to support of a friend of the United States in the 'war on drugs'. An excerpt:
"Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.
Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.
In the wake of Uribe's visit, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.
Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man."
Another example of today's Democratic party departure from that clarion call to 'assure the survival and the success of liberty' is an article by Daniel Pipes titled 'A million moderated Muslims on the march' . He reports good news of protest marches in Turkey and Pakistan by moderate Muslims. The Democratic party of Clinton do not want to hear this stuff. They think that the existence of moderate Muslims is a myth. The Clinton administration went out of its way to bring Islamist extremists into power in the Balkans. The Iranians are Bill Clinton's 'guys'.
Really though, the idea of this new symbol came to me from reading an article by Mohammed Fadhil of the 'Iraq the Model' website. Maybe somebody can explain to me the errors in my thinking. Until then I believe the new symbol best represents today's Democratic Party.