The Real Difference between Democrats and Republicans
Many issues we love to talk about in the political arena, while important, are really details to the underlying structural differences in the philosophies of the two parties and their candidates. I recall reading an article by a member of a conservative think tank (yes, I try to keep up) who described the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals as being one of tradition versus change. It was really a well-written article and I wish I had saved the link to it but?I didn?t. He argued that, when given a decision, a conservative would vote for sticking with the status quo or tradition over trying something new. You can definitely see this in the current administration?war versus diplomacy?traditional marriage vs civil unions ad nausium.
Upon reflection, I think the author was right but only with respect to what I would consider temporal social issues like abortion, gay rights, faith-based initiatives etc. that have a utilitarian tendency to change anyway. I have become to believe (I?ll try not to overuse a Bushism like ?believe? too much here) that the structural difference between the two is really their constituencies. How many of you think that America would have become as great a nation as it has without a strong and prosperous middle class? If you feel that a middle class is what separates us from third world countries, you would be correct. If you look at these countries, it?s not so much that they?re poor, although many are, it?s the fact that they have no majority middle class. They have the very wealthy with the very poor making up the majority of its citizens. All successful western countries are based on a majority of the population being in the middle of the income spectrum (normal distribution of wealth with standard deviations off the mean). Countries in recent memory that are achieving majority middle class stature include India and China. I contend that this requirement is independent of the type of government and that any form can either be successful at it or fail at it.
So, what?s the point? The point is that Bush has openly admitted that his base are the wealthy 5% of this country. Kerry has openly admitted that his base is the 85% of the middle class. Any monarch knows that you have to keep the 85% mildly happy to prevent upheaval and my contention is that this is exactly the republican approach: throw a few bones in there for the 85% and grow the wealthy 5 or 10%. This administration demonstrates this time and time again. The interesting thing is how very good they are at obfuscating the benefits of their programs for the wealthy while all making it seem like a good deal for the rest of us.
One last point: if you?re a lower middle class, gun toting, evangelical Christian, the only thing you have in common with George Bush is?well?really nothing. The terrorists aren?t particularly interested in getting to you and you aren?t even a republican target market where funding is concerned. So, perhaps you can help me understand why you support his administration. The other thing I?d like to know is how many Bush supporters have ever set foot on another continent, and being sent there by Uncle Sam doesn?t count. It may explain a lot.
Upon reflection, I think the author was right but only with respect to what I would consider temporal social issues like abortion, gay rights, faith-based initiatives etc. that have a utilitarian tendency to change anyway. I have become to believe (I?ll try not to overuse a Bushism like ?believe? too much here) that the structural difference between the two is really their constituencies. How many of you think that America would have become as great a nation as it has without a strong and prosperous middle class? If you feel that a middle class is what separates us from third world countries, you would be correct. If you look at these countries, it?s not so much that they?re poor, although many are, it?s the fact that they have no majority middle class. They have the very wealthy with the very poor making up the majority of its citizens. All successful western countries are based on a majority of the population being in the middle of the income spectrum (normal distribution of wealth with standard deviations off the mean). Countries in recent memory that are achieving majority middle class stature include India and China. I contend that this requirement is independent of the type of government and that any form can either be successful at it or fail at it.
So, what?s the point? The point is that Bush has openly admitted that his base are the wealthy 5% of this country. Kerry has openly admitted that his base is the 85% of the middle class. Any monarch knows that you have to keep the 85% mildly happy to prevent upheaval and my contention is that this is exactly the republican approach: throw a few bones in there for the 85% and grow the wealthy 5 or 10%. This administration demonstrates this time and time again. The interesting thing is how very good they are at obfuscating the benefits of their programs for the wealthy while all making it seem like a good deal for the rest of us.
One last point: if you?re a lower middle class, gun toting, evangelical Christian, the only thing you have in common with George Bush is?well?really nothing. The terrorists aren?t particularly interested in getting to you and you aren?t even a republican target market where funding is concerned. So, perhaps you can help me understand why you support his administration. The other thing I?d like to know is how many Bush supporters have ever set foot on another continent, and being sent there by Uncle Sam doesn?t count. It may explain a lot.
posted by Politico at 9:09 AM
2 Comments:
I share your fears over the slow and painful death of the middle class. Middle income jobs are becoming harder to find, while real estate prices keep creeping upward. In markets such as NY or LA, it takes both spouses (or partners) to afford even a modest house. We are no longer working for things like vacations or childrens education - we're working longer and harder just to pay the mortgage and buy overpriced shit we really don't need.
Advertising doesn't help, either. To preserve your sense of self-worth, you need to drive a car at least as good as your neighbors. You can't afford to BUY that Jag, but hell - a lease is just as good, right? So we get deeper and deeper in debt, with nothing tangible to show for it.
Somewhere along the line we've lost our sense of value. It's become more important for management to squeeze out an extra 1% of profit than it is to preserve the long term stability of a company by keeping employees happy. Happy employees are productive employees; frightened employees are not. Sooner or later, this WILL come back to bite us in the ass.
I think there is reason for many to be conservative, but I dont think Bush is a good president or a good conservative.
A fiscally unbalanced nazi madman is more like it.
Nixon was not so bad of a president...much better than bush and more honest very likely.
Post a Comment
<< Home