The last time I heard such poisonous talk of “party unity” was in the mention of Communist Party politics. Party officials routinely scrutinized the “masses” for signs of disloyalty or “free thinking” and any signs of individualism were quickly purged. Individuals who put their own agendas over the “good of the party” were at risk of ostracism, sent to re-education camps, or subject to far worse punishments.
Until recently, and upon hearing from such Democrats as Patrick Leahy and Bill Richardson, I thought that Americans could see through the groupthink Marxist style mentality that characterized the failed system. Americans could organize themselves, but the values and rights of the individual were upheld and celebrated. Any system that sacrificed the individual for any sort of abstract collective mentality was rejected. Party, gang, mob, clan, herd, collective, team, and other such concepts were not supposed to triumph over the individual’s pursuit of life, liberty, and personal happiness in an individualistic American system which promoted ingenuity, individualism, and striving for excellence.
Apparently, this is not so with the cadres who call for Hillary Clinton’s supplication to the collective will of Party Democrats. According to this view, Hillary must repress her personal ambitions and belief that she is the better leader for America. She must do this for the good of “The Democratic Party.”
But what exactly is “The Democratic Party” which demands such blind obeisance from its subjects? In grade school, we learn that the “government” is the people, and that, in a democracy, nothing is more important that the individual rights of the people. We learn that the abstractions of “government” would not exist except for the authority granted to it by the free-ranging, free-thinking and wildly individualistic people who make up the foundations of a free society.
Messrs. Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Leahy, Obama, Dean, and the legion of other “Party” mandarins and sycophants should look again to the U.S. Constitution before manipulating the political airwaves to pressure Hillary Clinton into submission. The idea that the abstraction known as the “Democratic Party” could be “destroyed” or be “permanent damaged” is absurd. If voters prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, are they to be accused of sabotaging the collective will of Democratic Party apparatchiks and Commissars? Is the Democratic Party in which I am registered the same one that Patrick Leahy subscribes to? Surely not, because that one embarrasses me by its departure from the ideals of individual freedom for which many have fought and died for.