The other day I came across a list of reasons why President Bush should not be re-elected. Here’s the list:

  1. Bush is destroying workers’ rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals.
  2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.
  3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.
  4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.
  5. Bush is curtailing women’s rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.
  6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.
  7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.
  8. Bush’s war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.
  9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.
  10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

If you have been following the latest election cycle as I have, you’d recognize these are reasons being used by Democrat Senator John Kerry’s campaign against President Bush (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), but there is one catch — this list didn’t come from the Democratic National Committee site. It came from the Communist Party USA site. There is virtually no difference between the Democratic objections to President Bush and his administration, and the Communist ones. Why? The answer is simple enough — the modern Democratic party is Marxist by its very nature.

The American Left didn’t start out Marxist, but it has increasingly become so in the past decades. I pointed out before that the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been fully accepted by the Left (and, sadly, by the Right in too many instances). But the Marxist rot has spread the farthest and been accepted the most by the Democrats and the Left.

Numerous pundits have noted a double standard between how members of the Left and Right are treated. Republican Senator Trent Lott made an off-the-cuff remark about fellow-Republican Senator Strom Thurmond’s presidential run of four decades earlier, and the subsequent backlash and cries of “Racist!” from the Left forced him to step down from his position of power in the Senate. Yet Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in his past, and he recently used the word “nigger” multiple times on national TV. There were no similar calls of outrage and horror from the Left, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dismissed this obvious demonstration of racism. Former President Clinton has been accused of multiple rapes and has confessed to multiple adulterous affairs, yet the National Organization of Women (NOW) has not only excused these actions, they actually stood by Clinton during the exposure of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. The Left proudly claims to champion the rights of racial minorities and women, but willingly accepts bigotry and misogyny when it comes from within their own ranks. Lawrence Auster explains why this double standard exists: the American Left has become Marxist.

The basic reason for the “liberal” double standard has already been alluded to. It is that today’s “liberals” are really leftists who have rejected the older liberal belief in a shared equality of citizens before the law and have embraced the socialist vision of “equality as a fact and equality as a result,” as Lyndon Johnson famously put it. Since people are unequal in their ability to accumulate property, as Hayek argued in the Mirage of Social Justice, equality of results can only be pursued by treating people unequally. This is the origin of the double standard.

Still don’t believe me? I have already demonstrated the link between the Communist Party USA and the Democratic party in their shared anti-Bush message, and I previously wrote how the DNC fully embraces the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, but you can also see it in some of the Democrat campaign slogans. Senator John Edwards’ “Two Americas” speech has been used repeatedly on the campaign trail:

Today under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one. One America does the work, while another America reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks.

Tell me whether there is any material difference between Senator Edwards’ stump speech and this quote by Joe Cannon, from the 1948 Socialist Workers’ Party convention speech:

There are two Americas — and millions of the people already distinguish between them. One is the America of the imperialists — of the little clique of capitalists, landlords and militarists, who are threatening and terrifying the world. This is the America the people of the world hate and fear. There is the other America — the America of the workers and farmers and the ‘little people.’

Another slogan for the Kerry/Edwards ticket, “Let America Be America Again,” was taken from the first line of a poem by Langston Hughes — a known Communist activist. This particular poem shows the poet’s admiration of Joseph Stalin, the most murderous of all the Soviet leaders. Senator Kerry wrote the preface to a recent re-release of Hughes’ poetry, so he seems to have no difficulty with the very pro-Communist flavor of Hughes’ work.

Speaking of Senator Kerry, the Left is rallying around him because he is their appointed leader. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group started to voice its concerns and opposition to Senator Kerry’s Navy record and service in Vietnam, the Left responded not by refuting these claims, but by launching attacks on the Swift Vets themselves. Apparently it is OK for the self-proclaimed “party of the little guy” to attack the little guys of the Swift Vets group when they dared to challenge the Left’s anointed leader. Any lie, dishonesty, sneaky behavior, or illegal act is defensible and right if it is done to uphold Marxist ideals.

This is why Leftists don’t care about their own hypocrisy. This is why it is useless to expose the Left’s double standard. Since treating people differently to achieve equality of result fits with Marxist ideals, the hypocrisy of their actions simply doesn’t matter. It is part of what they must do to achieve their desired ends. I believe in calling a spade a spade, so from now on, I will stop calling radical Democrats “the Left” or “the liberal Left” and call them by their true name: the Marxist Left.

As I type this, the Marxist Left is being exposed again. On October 14th, just a few weeks before the national election in November, the Democrat election playbook was leaked to the press. Chapter 2 of the playbook directs Democrats to “launch a pre-emptive strike” if no sign of voter intimidation appears. In other words, if nothing goes wrong, the Marxist Left is to go ballistic and claim voter intimidation anyway. You can see this in the shrill verbiage from the Marxist Left on the subject of the 2000 vote in Florida. They claim that a million blacks were disenfranchised, but nobody can point to a single black person who was prevented from voting. But since it assists their goal of regaining power, it’s acceptable for the Democrats to lie. In a further attempt to muddy the waters, the “Colorado Election Day Manual” says to round up the useful idiots and parade them before the media: in other words, describe “party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting”. The truth doesn’t matter to these people; all that matters is getting and keeping power. That is the essence of Marxism.

Remember Andrea Yates? She is the Texas woman who drowned her five children in 2001 and then called the police. Almost a month later, a grand jury handed down two indictments for their deaths, both capital charges that could carry the death penalty if she were convicted–and convicted she was, on March 12, 2002. Despite her legal plea that she was not guilty by reason of insanity, she was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole for forty years. Yates was in the news again this month when her lawyers said she had been placed on suicide watch while in prison.

Women’s advocates and organizations were outraged about this case. People like the National Organization for Women (NOW) saw Yates’ postpartum depression as a reason to rally around her. The fact that she methodically murdered her five children, all seven years old or younger, was not as big an issue for NOW as the chance to trumpet its feminist views. NOW complained that mothers are treated differently than fathers when they murder their children, but it also acknowledged that men are eight times more likely to murder than women, so it does make sense that the media would focus on the unusual case of a mother drowning her own children.

Some of the comments published by NOW and other feminist groups were remarkably forgiving of Andrea Yates. She was a depressed, mentally ill woman, so she should not be held responsible for anything she did, right? Judging by some of what was said, you would think that the victim in this murder trial was Yates herself, and not her five dead children. I cannot help but think that liberal feminist views on abortion might make the deaths of five children seem less of a crime. After all, if one is morally justified in killing one’s children before they are born, how much easier is it to justify destroying them after birth?

Another case of a woman in peril is taking place in Florida. In 1990, at the age of 26, Terri Schiavo suffered a collapse and subsequent brain damage. Since that time she has been cared for in nursing homes or a hospice facility, and by means of a feeding tube, she gets the food and water she needs. According to her husband, Michael Schiavo, and his attorney, Terri is completely brain-dead, like a vegetable or a houseplant. But her family points out that she smiles, laughs and cries, and she even responds to their presence in her room. Her husband’s doctors say this is just a reflex–albeit one that only occurs when her family is present.

In 1993, Michael Schiavo received $300,000 from a medical malpractice lawsuit; Terri was awarded $1,000,000 from a combination of that suit and a separate malpractice suit. Terri’s money was placed into a medical trust fund to provide the care she needs, while Michael’s was awarded to him. Since that time, Michael has directed that his wife be merely sustained in a nursing home, rather than rehabilitated to assist in her recovery. This act runs contrary to the intent of the courts who awarded the money, but many things are suspicious in this case. Michael Schiavo has been engaged to Jodi Centonze for the last seven years, and together they have one daughter and a second child on the way. If Mr. Schiavo merely wanted out of this situation so he could be free to marry again, he need only divorce Terri. But there is a powerful reason why he has consistently refused this option: money. Since Terri has no will and Michael Schiavo is legally her next of kin, he stands to gain all the unspent lawsuit money awarded to Terri upon her death. A living Terri is all that stands between him and wealth. Many times Terri’s parents have asked that Michael divorce Terri and allow them to take full custody of her. He has steadfastly refused. I can only assume he is doing so to ensure he remains the primary beneficiary when she dies. This desire for money seems to have been the impetus for Mr. Schiavo’s constant attempts to end Terri’s life. Over the last several years, he has twice instructed her caretakers to withhold medication so she would die from contracted illnesses. These attempts were unsuccessful, but on October 15, 2003, Mr. Schiavo was able to have her feeding tube removed, condemning Terri to a lingering death by dehydration. Unless something is done very soon to save Terri Schiavo, she will most likely die in the coming week.

National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy has strongly come out in Terri’s support. “This attempt at [Terri Schiavo's] life is horrific! At no time should food and water be denied a woman simply because she is worth more dead than alive.” Kimberly Browne, vice president of the Florida chapter of NOW, has organized a candlelight vigil at Terri’s hospice. “We are here to demonstrate against these hateful actions. Our aim is to bring Terri’s plight to the nation’s attention. Only then can we save this defenseless woman,” Browne said. Three legal challenges have been put forward by the Florida chapter and national offices of NOW in an attempt to stop this slaying. And for weeks, NOW has organized rallies on the Florida Capitol Building steps.

All right, before I get sued for libel, I must confess the last paragraph was a complete fabrication on my part. In reality, NOW has been completely silent about the plight of Terri Schiavo. If you do a search for Andrea Yates at the NOW website, you will find six instances where her case was officially discussed. But do a search for Terri Schiavo on the same site, and you will not find a thing. Why has NOW kept silent about Terri? This is a clear case of an innocent woman being denied her life and rights, so you would expect NOW to be all over this case, right? Why, then, do we hear nothing but silence from them? I cannot help but believe that Terri Schiavo does not serve NOW’s liberal agenda. NOW claims it works for ending all violence against women–even when some guy says, “Hey, nice dress!” to a woman at work, they view this as sexual harassment and a form of violence against women–but they are mum when it comes to Terri’s impending death by dehydration. Is this act not violent enough for them?

The only positive thing I can say about the National Organization for Women is that they are consistent in their callous disregard for human life. It is quite obvious what kind of value they place on the lives of the unborn, so why should they show any more compassion about ending the life of Terri Schiavo?

Addendum: On the same day this article was published, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed into law a bill designed to save the life of Terri Schiavo. The husband’s lawyer has five days to file additional arguments, the state another five after that to respond, then this matter will go before a judge. It isn’t over yet.

Addendum: On Oct. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union decided it was time to jump into this fray. Since they stand for life and liberties of the small guy, they are backing Terri Schiavo, right? Hah! Even the AARP is looking at joining the ACLU to fight for the husband’s wish to kill his wife. What is more apple pie, baseball, and American than pulling the plug on the one you love?

“Our members tell us that [medical self-determination] is a very important issue to them,” AARP state Director Bentley Lipscomb said. “They’re telling us they are very disturbed to think they could sign a living will or do not resuscitate order and have it overridden by the Legislature.” Hello, Bentley! Have you been paying attention? Obviously not, since there is no living will or do-not-resuscitate order in play here.

Isn’t it interesting to see who stands for the right to kill innocents?