First thought: Well, at least it’s honest.

One line of thought regarding logos in general is that they originated with “chops”, patterns Chinese traders used to label ships according to ownership or shipping company (“line”). I don’t think that’s right — the usage is a parallel, not derivative — but if you visit any port, you will see stacks, superstructures, and cargo containers emblazoned with bold, simplified patterns identifying whose ship it is.

It puts a new perspective on an old observation. Instead of rearranging the deck chairs while the ship is sinking, they’ve sent a working party up with buckets of paint to change the chop on the funnel.

The symbolism is accurate, too. The colors of the United States are red, white, and blue, and any logo intended to convey something related to the American character or American traditions should include all three. This one omits the red altogether, making it clear that Democrats are not only not an inclusive “big tent” party, they don’t consider themselves an American party.

When the original red-blue political map appeared, I was a bit miffed. Democrats are, and have been since at least the early part of the Twentieth Century, at least vaguely sympathetic to the world Left, and that tendency has become more pronounced in recent years. Red is the color of the Left, and it would have been more in keeping with tradition to assign red to them and blue to Republicans.

After thought, though, I changed my mind. We used to talk about “blue bloods”, people who felt that their ancestry was somehow purer than that of the mere hoi polloi who infested the rest of the country. The designation “blue blood” was a sneer, accusing them of feeling entitled to privileges, perquisites, and control of others, because their ancestry, wealth, and consequent educations made them simply better people than the rough savages they were obligated to manage whether they or their subjects willed it or no. The original Leftists adopted red for their banners, both because it is more vivid and because it symbolized their opposition to the “blue blooded” aristocratic class. Now that Democrats have adopted the full set of “blue blood” entitlements as righteously their own, it makes sense to label them with that color, with red falling to their opposition.

President Obama chose a bold circle, the first letter of his name, as the symbol for himself and his campaign. His policies use the shibboleths of the Left to justify concentration of power in the elite and entitled, the “blue blooded” aristocrats, so using blue as the color symbolizing that ideal is perfectly justifiable.

Not much more subtly, the emblematic color of the United Nations has always been a pale blue. The UN flag is a stylized planet with latitude and longitude lines superimposed on a field of washed-out blue, and UN “peacekeeping” forces wear helmets painted baby-blue to make them stand out from the forces involved in the conflict, who mostly wear some variant of olive drab. It is exactly the shade the Democrats’ logo designer chose for the “D”.

So the new logo of the Democratic Party consists of a circle for Obama’s ideals of pseudo-Leftism, in the color of arrogance, entitlement, and aristocracy, encompassing a “D” in the pale blue of pacifism, internationalism, and abandonment of American sovereignty, with no trace of the red of valor and opposition to tyranny that might make it a red-white-and-blue American symbol. It’s perfect, it is.