What do Democrats Stand For?
What a can of worms! But since you asked, here is what is what the left wing wants:
1. Extreme government authority to monitor and control corporate, social, legal, medical, and personal activities as it sees fit
2. Elimination of effective weapon ownership for citizens (not for police and military, however)
3. Government-controlled wealth redistribution, from those who earn to those who demand undeservingly
This is also, not-so-ironically, a fairly accurate description of how communism works.
It is accomplished through several concurrent efforts by its supporters to gain control of public opinion, and thus, the government. Examples include:
-Gradually gaining control of media and entertainment outlets through first promotions within the industry, then extensive funding of and favoritism toward fellow leftists in the industry, and finally lack of coverage of opposing and neutral viewpoints
(Note: viewpoints are presented which appear to be neutral or opposing, but which are cleverly disguised agreements--look for "conservative" news items using terms and phrases like "democracy" instead of Constitutional Republic, "a woman's right to choose" with a convenient omission of what is being chosen, "immigrant" instead of illegal alien, "gun crime," and many more that you will notice if you pay close attention. Also watch for attempts to frame discussions in a leftist light. If an article asks the question: "Do firearms prevent crime?" it is a frame. The proper argument would certainly ignore the point altogether, as the purpose of firearms is not to prevent crime, but rather to resist tyranny and retain the ability of the People to control the government--crime prevention is a bonus.)
-Creating and marketing a public perception that identifies the Party with the bestowal and protection of additional "rights" to women and minority groups, who in combination comprise a large segment of society
-Silencing of opposition to the Party by the non-minority group (heterosexual white males in particular, but also females in many cases) by stigmatization of their history and condemnation of any pride or solidarity shown among them for any reason, while promoting the same in regard to minority groups
-Creating and marketing a public perception that identifies the Party with the bestowal of income, gifts and privileges to those who earn none, thus appealing to the natural human weakness of greed
-Creating and marketing a public perception that the individual should depend upon and defer to the collective, reinforced by stigmatization and harsh criticism of independent behavior and speech
-Promoting heavy taxation of the general populace--to reduce its ability to resist, while simultaneously increasing government power
This is just scratching the surface, I'm afraid. Leftists are weak-minded, but not stupid, I assure you. They have effectively planned and carried out this program so far, to the point that the vast majority of their target sub-groups have been successfully influenced to agree with the Party in all matters, rather than just the one for which they accepted the Party in the beginning (i.e., the targets have devolved from embracing simple single-issue "identity politics" into embracing complete socialism, thus permanently securing their votes for the Party).
There are some people who see some of what the Party does and why. There are a few people who realize most of what it does, why, and how. But I'm afraid that the wise among us are at a strong disadvantage. You see, the Party operates as a unified collective, whereas their opponents are independent thinkers who are unlikely to make an equal or greater effort to stand together in the fight against socialism--and if they were to do so, the media would immediately attack them as "bigots," "right-wing extremists," "fringe groups," and so on, to preemptively reduce their ability to gain popularity. In the end, much like we have seen across Europe and the third world, the left's insidious infiltration of government and media nets them their desired result: control of the people and the favor of the majority.
They learned a lot after watching left-wing dictators such as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot rise and fall. They realized that merely "taking control" of a nation was insufficient--they needed control of the majority, who would then become their power source, but also that to which they would shift blame for failed policies and laws. In the USSR's case, most blame Stalin and communists for the horrible mess created. But look at England, Finland, and France, where communism (renamed "democracy" or "socialism" to be more palatable to the masses) is operating unchecked in the open! It is of some note that the word "socialism" is accepted as a valid belief system in Europe by the majority of the populace...:barf: but this is how well they learned their lesson about maintaining the appearance of serving the people.
Obvious facts like the necessity to disarm--or at least greatly reduce the effectiveness of the weapons possessed by--the general populace have not been forgotten. Unsurprisingly, the taglines and soundbites promoting this have not changed--not for lack of effort, but rather lack of substance. Emotion-based opposition to firearms ownership has been encouraged through any effective means, which includes media sensationalism of accidents, shootings of all sorts, and even the mere existence of effective weapons in society. All they need is for 51% of the nation to be weak-minded enough to be duped, and they have the entire nation.
A newer--though now decades old--idea that has netted them considerable results is the addition of "Republicans" to their roster. This creates the appearance of "bipartisanship" and thus lends credibility to their cause, provided the audience is unable to compare conservative values with modern "Republican" voting patterns and discover that many "Republicans" are communists. A large portion of the audience doesn't even care to check! What an amazing bonus to the Party. They have managed to turn the former two choices into one choice with two faces, and have made the vast majority of the audience afraid to choose anything other than one of the Party's two faces. Meanwhile, the audience is encouraged to seek material gain and mundane satisfactions, and to avoid at all costs rational contemplation of the history (and probable future) of America.
