Blue Plea

Why the Democrats probably won't listen to the New York Times:

It seems improbable in the extreme that the Dems will heed the pleas of their leading propaganda arm and drop their obsession with men who think they’re women, open borders, inflationary fiscal policies and galloping authoritarianism, but there are historical precedents. The Democrat Party, whatever else it was, used to be adaptable to circumstances. In 1968, it went down to defeat with presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, who supported the war in Vietnam. As the war grew increasingly unpopular, the Democrats moved farther to the left (which is always easy for them) and nominated the virulently antiwar, far-left Sen. George McGovern in 1972. When McGovern’s candidacy went down in flames, losing 49 states, the party moved back toward the center by going with southern Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976. All that, however, was a long, long time ago. Now the party of Andrew Jackson and FDR is in the grip of hardline leftist ideologues who seem to care more about adherence to the far-left line than about electoral viability. All the party’s old ability to adapt has been lost; to change course now would apparently make one a class traitor, or a racist, or a fascist, or whatever the left’s favorite term for those it fears and hates is these days. The Democrats of 2025, in fact, are more rigid and doctrinaire than Mao’s China ever was at the height of the Cultural Revolution. Party apparatchiks believe their nonsense with religious fervor, and are quick to condemn anyone who deviates from the party line as heretics. It’s unlikely, given its long decades of service, that the New York Times will end up being anathematized for its Saturday editorial, but there is no doubt that at least some Democrat party top dogs are enraged over it.

Calls for sanity drive them insane...