Modern political science & philosophy can trace its roots back to fifteenth-century Italy and the rise of Italian diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli. Widely referred to as being Machiavellian in today’s age, the term is used to point out the contemptuous and duplicitous behaviors that politicians use to further their grip on power.

Arguably, the Machiavellian hunger for power has never been as overtly present as it is with today’s Democrats. From financial transparency to Russian collusion, modern American Democrats manipulate their narratives in both directions depending on what they stand to gain or lose. Frighteningly, their base chases the flashlight like a distracted cat with unquestioning devotion to a false reality that just doesn’t exist beyond their credulity.

Here are five examples where Democrats contort their own political values with disregard for intellectual consistency.

Financial Transparency

Recent 2020 hopefuls like John Delaney (D-MD), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) have all called for sweeping reforms and greater transparency in campaign finance and public spending. They want the public to know where the money is coming from and how it is being spent as it pertains to their elected officials.

All three of these candidates have made comments to the point of stopping the inappropriate use of money to influence elections and politics. But, are they really that consistent when it comes to advocating for transparency with public funds?

Not at all. Their calls for supposed reforms to financial transparency are not the only thing these three have in common. All three of them, along with 180 other Democrats, voted against H.R. 732, Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. They voted, quite to the contrary, to shield transparency.

This piece of legislation would have prohibited government officials from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States to resolve a civil action, plea agreement, deferred prosecution, or a non-prosecution agreement. What Delaney, Gabbard, and O’Rourke are saying with their voting record is firm compared to what they say on the campaign trail. What they are saying is that covering up the malicious behavior of their cronies in Congress is a perfectly acceptable way to kill the transparency of financial spending in politics.

Corporate Influence

Recent decisions by retailers like Walmart to enact strong gun control policies in their stores have received nods of approval from Democrats. In fact, 2020 hopefuls like Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are praising corporate efforts to affect change in public policy.

Booker went as far as to say, “Walmart should use its power to stop selling guns in its stores until politicians and gun manufacturers get their act together and raise the standard for gun ownership in this country.” A deliberate call for corporate intervention in public policy.

This handwringing, again, does not match their legislative stomachs. Both of these candidates have recently resuscitated disapproval of corporate influence in politics as noted in the infamous Supreme Court case of Citizens United vs FEC (2010), which ruled that corporations and unions could not be banned from promoting the election of one candidate over another.

Here again, Democrats are using their own aversion to policy to influence their weaponization of the same policy. Antithetical to their support of gun control efforts by proxy of corporate voice, you can bet that if Walmart announced they would stop selling the “Morning After” pill out of public conscience, these same politicians would be attacking them for using their “power of profits” to influence public policy.

Science

Perhaps the most outrageously profound instances of cognitive dissonance among Democrats can be found in the fields of science. The left is notorious for labeling conservatives as “science-deniers” when attempting to justify their policies around the environment and climate change.

The argument of man’s impact on climate change is one of the backbones of the liberal narrative. In simple context their assertion of the magnitude of that impact is absurd. Certainly man has some artificial impact, but it’s unsubstantiated relative to the history of the planet. We have only a small sliver of time as a reference point. Fractions of seconds, really. The earth has been cycling and purging species for more than 4.5 billion years. One day it will cleanse itself of human life, too. To assume man has the power to change that is not just ignorant, it’s comically arrogant.

Democrats pontificate the importance of listening to science at it pertains to defining the parameters of climatology. Not surprisingly, however, these same Democrats refuse the fundamental biology that defines the parameters of gender and the conception of human life. They deny the parameters of physics to the effect of physical barriers. They deny the science of sociology as it defines the parameters human behavior with regards to criminology and law enforcement.

It is Democrats, in fact, who deny the very scientific methods they use to argue impotently in favor of something that cannot be accurately predicted even seven days out, let alone ten years. Their thoughts and actions are everything but scientific.

Healthcare

Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI) has been one of the most vocal among Democrats blinding the masses with their virtue-signaling about affordable healthcare. Moore has gone as far as to use her own suggested health concerns as a way to push the importance of affordable healthcare, claiming the tens of thousands of dollars she has saved by utilizing Obamacare.

The problem with Moore’s assertions is that her entire proclamation is a lie. First, Gwen is enrolled in the top tier of Obamacare, a level that is not even close to affordable for the vast majority of plan participants. And Gwen is not fighting to change that aspect at all.

Secondly, while Gwen touts the Obamacare savings as it relates to her recovery, she fails to inform her constituents of two major perks she enjoys that the general public doesn’t have access to and never will. As a member of Congress, Gwen receives free outpatient care at all US military facilities. Her office in DC is conveniently located close to several of the world’s top military medical facilities, including Walter Reed National Medical Center.

Additionally, Moore, like all 535 members of Congress, receives cost-free healthcare and prescription benefits through the Office of the Attending Physician for the United States Congress.

Gwen falsely leads her constituents to believe that they would receive the same quality and affordability of treatment that she does under Obamacare, while neglecting to tell them that she doesn’t utilize those programs at all. In fact all of her savings are attributed exclusively to congressional healthcare perks that are not available to the public under any tier of Obamacare.

So how does Gwen actually vote with regards to healthcare? In both 2017 and 2018 she voted against legislation to expand Medicaid and Medicare coverage. She voted against H.R. 5797 (Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act), and H.R. 849 (Protecting Seniors Access to Medicare Act). And these are just two examples. Gwen has a lengthy history, 14 years of it in fact, of voting against healthcare initiatives for seniors, veterans, recovering addicts, and even disadvantaged, expectant mothers.

Russia

Vermont Senator and 2020 candidate Bernie Sanders has been one of the loudest proponents of the Russian collusion hoax. Sanders continues to perpetuate mistruths. In fact, the Russia scapegoat has become one of his favorite default responses to the 2016 elections.

Sanders would have you believe that he’s the biggest critic of Russia, but much like the pattern of his fellow liars in this article his voting record says otherwise. In a rare moment of bipartisanship during the current administration, in 2017 the US Senate would pass H.R. 3364, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Among penalties levied against several foreign adversaries, this piece of legislation would enact heavy sanctions against the Russian Federation for their alleged interference in the 2016 elections – ironically elections that saw Hillary Clinton illegally steal the party’s nomination from Sanders.

The Senate passed the legislation with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 98-2. Bernie Sanders was one of only two US Senators who voted against sanctioning Russia in a mind boggling exercise of duplicitous Machiavellian behavior that still has many of his peers scratching their heads.

Deceptive behavior isn’t exclusive to Democrats, but it has certainly become a practice that is willfully pandemic among their ranks in 2019. The instances above are only five of many, but the common denominator in all of them is the glaring difference between what Democrats are telling their constituents and what they are actually doing.

We must continue to acknowledge the difference between words and actions. While Democrats continue their virtue signaling, their actual voting records are everything to the contrary of what they claim to stand for, or against. A great place to check your Representative’s voting records is the Vote Smart platform, which contains every single vote of every member of Congress, with links to any correspondence they may have offered at the time.

Call them duplicitous, call them Machiavellian – either are just words to simply call Democrats what they are: manipulative liars.

Advertisements