I have
talked before in the difference in political climate prior to the past 35
years. Now, if you haven’t experienced these times, it makes it difficult to
compare them, and history books often miss the feel of the times. But most of
us are well aware of the increasing rancor of political debate between sides.
It also seems difficult for me, at least, to even understand those divisions as
they seem splintered.
I’m not
sure where the Democratic party is anymore. I do not see the strong
progressives of years gone past who were passionate about the needs of those in
poverty and see to face those issues. I look for those who want to secure a
medical safety net in this country where no one should have to worry about
getting good basic health care as they do in other developed countries. I would
like to see progressive passion that all people to be treated equally. I would
like to see a real interest in building infrastructures that benefit the entire
citizenry. I would like to see passion for the needs of people placed at the
forefront of political debate. But I see relatively little of it. Democrats
have acceded to many of the conservative issues in recent years because of a
predominance of talk about accepted economic interests. Or, the Democrats have
climbed into bed with the big money folk in the same way Republicans have.
Republicans
claim they are all family values, but narrowly define the values as to exclude
other equally moral values. Republican claim they want small government but the
record shows they have grown it more than ever, just for their own purposes.
Republicans believe they stand for the middle class and their values, but then
enact legislation the benefits of ultra rich over the middle and lower classes.
The Republicans push the need of a large military and then are tightwads when
it comes to caring for veterans. Republican love to talk about Pork (earmarks),
it was McCain’s mantra, but it is a miniscule part of the budget of which both
parties participate in it. Republicans avow strict interpretations of the constitution
in word only. Republicans want a free market economy which has never existed,
we’ve always had a mixed economy forgetting that when we the economy was most
unrestricted in the 19th century we had wild fluctuations in the
economy that demanded government control. They say they want good education and
then destroy teacher unions which leads to poor teaching and devalues
education. They claim they are energy progressive, along with Democrats, and
the support oil companies and demean green energy and deny global warming. And
apparently they want extremely good health care for the rich. [see http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/]
What I do
see is that the only real issue that gets attention is economics. Both
Democrats and Republicans have gone where the money is have of necessity become
manipulated by those vested interests. Now I am not saying that individual
Democrats and Republicans are all rich folk, they’re not, but they have been
manipulated. They listen to unreliable media sources and sound bytes and for
the most part of ill informed about political issues and cannot talk with each
other about these important is rationally and intellectually without rancor and
name calling. In my opinion forget listening to the major networks and avoid
the pseudo news networks like the plague. Try listening to NPR and the BBC and
other foreign broadcasts to get a better idea of what is going on in our own
country.
What are
American values we all support? Can we accept that fact that the nation is
radically different from the nation that was founded by the founding fathers
and needs to adjust to more times while adhering to those basic values? Is
civics even taught in high school anymore? Has competition put the search for truth
to rout?
Go read
the prophets, particularly and Amos and Micah and see if you can find modern corollaries.
"Or, the Democrats have climbed into bed with the big money folk in the same way Republicans have."
ReplyDeleteThe tables have turned. This might have had some traction 10 or so years ago. But now the Democrats are much more in this bed than the Republicans.
Look at the TARP bailout. An $800 giveaway to big banks. Most Republicans voted against it. Most Democrats? For it.
Or look at the SCHIP controversy. A program originally intended for needy children. The Democrats fought to expand it to include wealthy adults (yes, free healthcare for weathly adults). The Republicans fought to keep it for the needy only.
Finally, there's the auto industry bailout. Pres. Obama's handout of tens of billions to two giant corporations. There is a sharp partisan divide on this. And yes it is the Democrats who think this is a good idea, while most Republicans are opposed.
--------------
"They say they want good education and then destroy teacher unions which leads to poor teaching and devalues education. "
I strongly disagree with this characterization. The teachers unions have a very destructive effect on education overall. Their goal is to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. They push to take money out of education and increase class sizes, while they oppose needed reforms to improve education.
The unions' commitment to education is on display any time there's a strike. You will find many teachers too lazy to bother to come in to work, while the real dedicated professionals cross the picket line and remember that the children come first.
governments. Sorry, state controlled media is best suited to North Korea, not a free society.
The greed, sloth, and violence of the organized labor wreaks great havoc on the critical missions of government. Which, we should remember, are not to make government employees rich, but to serve the public.
This fact is realized by great public servants such as FDR, who said:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
The great private sector labor leader George Meany said something similar:
The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare
The critical missions of government are too important to let unions destroy. After all, when a public sector union goes on strike or initiates action, they are striking against the people as whole. Not corporate fatcats. The public sector unions put greed first, without regards to the quality of public service.
As a matter of curiosity dmark, what sources do you rely upon for information you find re
ReplyDeleteliable, true and accurate? As I mentioned before the interpreter is part of the data, and I would like to know your presuppositions and what they are based upon.
Of course I watch PBS and BBC. As for union busting: simply a corporate strategy to lower wages (and not so
ReplyDeletecleverly getting a few low wage earners to do their bidding). The best years in this nation were when unions were their strongest, the middle classes at their earning
height and progressive taxation was actually progessive:
the years following WWII. As unions have shrunk, so has the real median wage. We are becoming a society of great wealth for a few and great poverty for most...Somolia, perhaps?
Re: the TARP bailout - the republicans who voted against it did so because they knew they had the luxury of doing so without preventing its passing. Thus you had democrats in Congress teaming with a Republican administration to forestall a full-on depression-style banking collapse.
ReplyDeleteWhile the financial system in 2008 was facing an existential crisis that was the most serious since the Panic of 1907, the debate over whether TARP was the right thing to do is far, far less relevant than the less-discussed matter of why it was necessary in the first place and what should be done to prevent it. From the repeal of Glass-Steagall during the Clinton administration to the misguided efforts to broaden subprime lending under the Bush administration, we unlearned much of what we learned from previous economic crises.
As for the TADP bailout, do you want a link that lists the Republicans in the House, a majority, who voted against it?
DeleteWhat they actually thought about this, the biggest instance of corporate welfare in history, is shown by their votes.
Do you have any names or any links involving those who really supported it but voted despite this? Or that they voted for it as a way to support it?
In our system of governance, a legislator voting against something (or for it) is the best way to find out what they think.
As for "depression" claims, that was scare mongering. How else for the banks to get more handouts to use such "or else" hyperbole?
The "Bankters" at the top of the companies who received the bailouts pocketed tens of millions on bonuses.... money they got from the bailouts. It was a significant instance of what is often decried in this blog: the rich taking from us.
As for the financial collapse, it was caused not by deregulation, but by bad regulation. Meddling in the free market. Fannie and Freddie, two government agencies, encouraged banks to make bad loans by promising to back them up. This made subprime possible. Without government intervention to encourage it.... if things were left to the free market, , there's little incentive for banks to make these kinds of loans at all.
If we have really learned the message of the collapse, we would disband Fannie and Freddie right away.
Your question "Can we accept that fact that the nation is radically different from the nation that was founded by the founding fathers and needs to adjust to more times while adhering to those basic values?" appears to be a no brainer, given flintlock to thermonuclear, population up from 3.9 million to 307 million, carriage to 747 airliner,
ReplyDeleteink quill to I-pad, slavery to a president. Jefferson was
prescient in imagining this and recognising the flexibility
built into our consitution. But, there are some folks who
long for the 'days of the founders'....and hate being termed
trogdolytes.
None of which, I hope, should be a reason to ignore the Bill of Rights when it seems inconvenient.
Delete