Mayor Pete Hopes to Set Himself Apart From the Pack by Veering Hard Left

Mayor Pete Hopes to Set Himself Apart From the Pack by Veering Hard Left May 17, 2019

There were some softening on South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential hopeful, Pete Buttigieg.

He’s a moderate, they said.

He’s a Christian, they said.

Let’s forget how he openly lives a lifestyle that is in direct opposition of God’s Word on marriage, and that for the sake of politics, he’s also attacked, unwarranted, Vice President Mike Pence.

Now, I’m no fan of VP Reek. I find him weak, and unnervingly subservient to Trump.

That being said, my only issue with his professed faith is that he, like far too many other American evangelicals, seems more than happy to bend any Christian principles in ignoring Donald Trump and his abusive, profane ways.

Ok. He’s kind of creepy, with this total Stepford vibe, but, again, I think Buttigieg is ridiculously transparent with his attacks on Pence.

Besides, Pence is low hanging fruit. If Mayer Pete wants to set himself apart from the ever-growing pack of Democratic contenders, he’s going to have to come up with something better than what he’s been doing.

OR he could do what he’s apparently chosen to do and lurch so far left that he makes the others seem moderate, by comparison.

That’s what he’s done, unveiling on Thursday the first of his policy positions.

And let me tell ya – they’re special.

Axios covered the litany of liberal bad ideas conjured up by the mayor of a struggling community.

So he’s listening his cockamamie notions under three headings: “Freedom,” “Security,” and “Democracy.”

To take a cursory look, his first foray into policy reads like text book socialism and massive government overreach.

Oh, great. Something new and different for Democrats.

*Insert massive eyeroll*

Apparently, he’s seen the sharp, leftward lurch of the party and he doesn’t want to be left behind.

None of these points feel particularly original. He’s apparently hoping that his delivery of the same destructive policies will be enough to fool voters into believing he’s different than the rest.

Let’s examine the lunacy.

Under the banner of “Freedom” Axios covers three stated ideas.

First up, “Medicare for all.”

Imagine: rationed healthcare, just like the socialist hellholes liberals tend to fantasize about.

You get the worst possible care for the highest possible price, and the government is intimately involved in all our medical decisions.

Is that “freedom”?

Hard pass.

Then these gems:

Racial equality: Create a commission to propose reparations policies for Black Americans and close the racial wealth gap

Yes, making half the population pay for the sins of their fathers through increased taxes is a wonderful way to move forward. I mean, it would close the “racial wealth gap” by making working class Americans increasingly poorer. And of course, if you think race relations were strained before, wait until you attempt to implement something designed to punish people for something they never did.

LGBTQ rights: Pass the Equality Act; reverse the ban on transgender military service; enforce the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act and key federal civil rights laws.

All things designed specifically to make us weaker and less effective.

His “Security” platform is no less ill-advised.

Climate change: Implement a Green New Deal with all available tools including a carbon tax-and-dividend for Americans, and major direct investment to build a 100% clean energy society

Gun control: Raise the standard of gun protection and ownership to make all Americans safer

Extremism: Increase federal resources for countering domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence

So, he’s worrying about the climate and domestic terrorism, but he’s offering little else to combat the threats that face us outside of our borders.

This is a problem with Democrats. They’re all so convinced that every other place and peoples in the world are better than us, that they refuse to recognize dangers to our way of life from bad actors on the outside.

Finally, his “Democracy” gimmick.

Gerrymandering: Establish independent, statewide redistricting commissions

Electoral college: A national popular vote to replace the Electoral College

Political representation: True political representation for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico

Maybe not so oddly enough, when Democrats talk gerrymandering and redistricting, it always seems to be to their benefit.

As for the electoral college, it has been explained over and over that we have an electoral college for a reason. Mainly, it’s because places like New York and California shouldn’t be the final word for Americans from less densely populated areas. The electoral college allows for each area of the nation to be represented.

There is more to Mayor Pete’s attempts to play super-liberal, but that’s enough for one sitting.

We’ll see if the strategy pays off. He’s only got to get past a couple dozen or so others, all with ideas as wretched as his.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Weyer

    As chemical noted, Mayor Pete is in a weird bind: The right go nuts on his being gay and the left on his being Christian. That alone is going to make it harder for him to break through but this plan is not going to help.

    Okay, now a few points I can agree with (climate change fighting as that is a real problem) but he’s going about it the wrong way (if he thinks a “green society” is possible, he’s in Fantasyland). The reparations thing is truly stupid on several levels and I am right there that getting rid of the electoral college is a totally horrible move. We can argue all day on who’s worse when it comes to gerrymandering but getting ride of the EC won’t solve that problem (if anything, make it worse). It just looks like truly pandering to the ultra-progressive base and another reason I don’t think he’s going to last long in this race.

  • WW

    Speaking on evangelicals more than
    happy to compromise their principles to in order to ignore trump’s abusive and profane ways, I ran across this online last night from CNN Politics. In an interview with Fox news trump was asked by Steve Hilton to set his ideology aside (as if he had one) and give his thoughts on the fact that Buttigieg can now stand on a campaign stage with his husband and this be accepted as normal behavior. trump responded that he absolutely had no problem with it and thought it was a sign of great progress. Given Franklin Graham’s recent attacks on Buttigieg’s lifestyle, let’s see him spin this one. I’m sure he will but will enjoy watching him squirm.

  • Michael Weyer

    Oh, I just adore when the Trump sycophants have to figure out how to defend him on stuff they’ve long been against. It exposes them as the sheer hypocrites they are.

  • Alpha 1

    Liberals and Democrats take note: the right will call you a radical leftist socialist no mater what you do. As Susan makes it clear, they see any attempt at creating a more equal society as weakness that must be crushed. You can’t win them over, so you may as well own your politics.

  • Michael Weyer

    My lifelong Republican uncle always laughed at the accusations of Obama as a serious radical socialist (“He’s more moderate than anyone on the Democrat side”). It’s why AOC throws them, she openly goes “Yep, I’m a socialist and proud of it.”

  • Alpha 1

    Republicans have probably done more to pave the way for the return of socialism in America than any actual socialist. Years of calling milquetoast centrist Barack Obama a radical socialist defanged it as an accusation, and calling market-based policies like the ACA socialism just made people think that socialism means the government doing literally anything. Now that actual socialists are back, people are open to them because they’re okay with the idea of the government doing things, while a decade of crying wolf on the right means nobody listens to them outside their echo chambers.

    If America ends up with a socialist government, Fox News will go down as one of the greatest own goals in all political history.

  • Joslyn Renfrey

    If you’re so unhappy now that politicians are going left, maybe you shouldn’t have voted for Trump in the first place.
    Just sit down in the puddle of urine you diddled and stop complaining.

  • chemical

    To be fair, I don’t think anyone here voted for Trump, whether conservative or liberal. Susan is a Never Trump conservative.

  • chemical

    The reparations thing is merely creating a commission to evaluate the situation. There is no actual policy proposed; he’s only promising to study the issue. If he’s elected he may end up doing absolutely nothing on this issue at all, if that’s what the commission proposes.

    So, why propose creating the commission? Because Democratic primary voters are more minority than the general population is.

    Personally I’m for getting rid of the Electoral College. It’s outdated and makes rural votes worth more than urban votes. The Founding Fathers implemented it because they were concerned about big states bullying small ones. However, the system implemented lets rural states bully urban states. It’s also worth noting that the 2 worst presidents we’ve had in modern history would have not been elected if it wasn’t for the electoral college.

    If anything, Buttigieg’s platform is standard-issue. There is nothing super exciting about it.

  • chemical

    From Susan:

    First up, “Medicare for all.”
    Imagine: rationed healthcare, just like the socialist hellholes liberals tend to fantasize about.
    You get the worst possible care for the highest possible price, and the government is intimately involved in all our medical decisions.

    I have a bit of a broader perspective on this. I’m married to a Korean immigrant, and my son has dual US / Korean citizenship due to international law.

    It has been the case where I’ve bought my wife and son a plane ticket to send them to Korea for medical and dental care, because it costs less to have the procedure done in Korea, even factoring the plane ticket’s cost, and even though I’m insured through my employer. They also get better care, mostly because the insurance companies aren’t calling the shots on what care is allowed to be provided. I find it strange that Susan is opposed to the government interfering in medical decisions, yet wants to outlaw abortion and doesn’t have a problem with insurance providers making the same medical decisions.

  • Alpha 1

    It’s worth noting that people in countries with “rationed, socialist healthcare” like South Korea, France, and Sweden literally live longer than Americans, who get glorious free-market healthcare.

  • Michael Weyer

    It is odd how so many on the right claim socialism leads to disaster like Venezuela (which is also a dictatorship) rather than how places like Canada and France are doing perfectly okay with socialized medicine.

    Don’t get me wrong, I find pure socialism is a mistake (I feel it’s better balancing it with capitalism) yet ignoring when it actually works rather than saying “any nation who tries it is a hellhole” is a bit off.

  • Michael Weyer

    Getting rid of the EC just puts the power of en election in the major cities (NYC, LA and Chicago alone would dominate) and makes the voices of the “middle America” seem less important. That won’t help matters much given how rough things already are.

  • chemical

    Alpha said it best about the right yelling about socialism (i.e. the government doing anything at all) has created a boy who cried wolf scenario.

  • Michael Weyer

    Again, you still see some guys on this board like JA and Illinois Patriot openly slamming Obama as this radical socialist whereas the biggest complaint about Obama from the left was his being way too moderate or even conservative for their tastes.

    I remember when Warren Buffett was backing an Obama bit, Fox News then saying “has Warren Buffett turned socialist?” On Daily Show Jon Stewart summed up “you guys have no idea what socialism even means, do you? It’s like “Look at George Clooney, going around with all those hot women, how gay is he?””

  • chemical

    The Founders implemented the rule to try to force a president to need broad support from both urban and rural areas in order to get elected. Due to the way the system is set up, however, in a close election the rural-backed candidate always wins. What they ended up creating is a system where one only needs rural support to get elected, due to the electoral college favoring rural voters. I get the concern with not wanting to ignore rural voters, but it allows candidates to ignore urban votes and win elections.

  • Alpha 1

    My favorite example of this is the George Soros of conservative conspiracies. In the minds of the right he’s a radical socialist trying to install communist governments around the world… despite the fact they think he also controls and benefits from the institutions of global capitalism.

  • Joslyn Renfrey

    I think I got the impression that she was regretting trump, rather than a never trump.

  • Michael Weyer

    Never forget how they still claim he was a decorated Nazi officer in World War II.

    Which would have been quite the achievement given A) he’s Jewish and B) was nine years old when the war broke out.

  • Alpha 1

    To be fair, he was a very precocious 9 year old

  • gimpi1

    I’m eternally puzzled by this “hellhole” thing. Canada, Denmark, France, Australia, Japan or Thailand are hellholes? Apparently hell has been vastly underrated. Also holes.

    Look, the population of these hellholes live longer, generally healthier lives and their societies pay much less for that care. They have healthier babies, lower maternal mortality rates, less risk of contagious disease and less societal disfunction caused by a disfunctional healthcare system. Their various systems are not perfect , but by virtually every metric, their systems work better than ours.

    I get it if someone, for reasons of consistency or devotion to specific principles prefers to accept the costs of not adapting a single-payer system. Just be honest about it. Admit that all the best evidence indicates that a single-payer system delivers better care for less, then tell us why you think that’s less important than tax rates, defense spending (which would likely be cut) or your notion of freedom that you view as compromised by single-payer systems. Don’t lie or defame other societies. Is that too much to ask?