| | To say that the democrats haven't had any new visions depends on what exactly you mean by a vision. The vision of the mystic-altruist-collectivist-statist mentalities hasn't changed since its inception at the dawn of man, but its specific implementation has run the gamet over the centuries, and with the democrats it has gone through a wide variety implementations in the federal congress. It is true they have essentially run out of ideas, but this is so only because they have created every form of government interference and assistance imaginable and there really is nothing left to them now but to march the society straight through the gates of full-blown collectivism, beginning with such programs as socialized medicine and compulsory national service. They undoubedly realize that the people are not yet ready for this level of submission and thus it appears that they have gone as far as their compromising will take them. However, this present stall in their progress should not be taken as ideological backruptcy or the end of their political road. The collectivists are not ideologically bankrupt and never will be and they will not surrender their cause. They are merely waiting for the society to morally soften so that they may take their evil to the next level. I can not find anyone in politics who has been a more effective force in this progression than Teddy Kennedy, and not just for array of specific programs he has helped to implement, but more than anything for the mindset which he has helped to created through his bold and ardent advocation of liberalism.
Cronyism and power is not so much the defining characteristic of Ted Kennedy, but politics in general and always has been, since its operational principle is the assembly of alliances, and is thus an unavoidable attribute of the process. An Objectivist political party would also seek loyalties and use its influence to benefit its supporters. These are non-essentials here.
His out-of-focus babbling, such as in the video you recommended ("mistake", and this is not the only example that can be found), his womanizing, drinking, or general bumbling does not in anyway reduce him to non-ideology, and his lack of grace is not cause to dismiss him as a man who does not need to be taken seriously. He is a collectivist and generally regarded as one of the most effective members of congress.
With his passing, as well as the others, and the lack of any comparable replacements, I do not think we are seeing changes of an insignificant or inconsequential nature, but instead the passing of an era.
|
|
