Growing up in the 50's and 60's, there were Democrats and Republicans. I happened to grow up in a family of Democrats. The first election I can remember was that between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. To be honest I have no recall of any talk about liberals or conservatives back then. I'm sure there were some biases at work in choosing a candidate such as physical attractiveness and charisma, I mean come on, this was John Kennedy. Camelot himself. And Nixon? If here had been a grandpa character on Leave it to Beaver it would have been him. I have no doubt that there were plenty of Republicans that were drawn to Kennedy and had no qualms about it. He convinced voters that he would do a great job and we all know history has borne that fact.
I dare say though, that the ideals of the parties have changed over the decades since. Democrats have been the force behind some of the greatest federal programs this country has known. Roosevelt's' New Deal and the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps was the 'magic' the country needed to recover from the Great Depression. And this was no small feat. FDR's Social Security Act has been taking care of older Americans for almost 90 years. Johnson's Civil Rights Act did more to bring racial equality than any other act of American government. And none of those landmark programs exploited any subgroup of Americans in order for them to succeed. They succeeded because Americans saw the value in them and got behind them.
Such programs seem to be erstwhile memories of our better days as a nation. Legislation and programs today don't measure up to being good for all Americans. They target particular constituencies and it seems, invariably for the purpose of getting votes. As the national debt has grown through the years to fund literally a billion things, government has tried to get creative in ways to fund these partisan oriented programs. In doing so it seems an insipid problem came to light; in order to give someone something you have to take from someone else. As the awareness of this fact of life surfaced we were no longer Democrats and Republicans, we were now liberals and conservatives. The liberals supported the social programs such as welfare and were for increased regulations to keep big business under control. And of course to administer these programs and enforce the regulations government had to grow bigger and more powerful. More money was needed. There is one way for a government to obtain money, to tax. No one likes to pay more tax and the government has taken to targeting a specific sub groups of Americans to tax at higher rates. A mantra that has become so popular is "The rich need to pay their fair share". As if they have been rolling along all this time not paying their fair share. A couple of things need to be clarified (as if that were possible...) though. One is who exactly are "the rich"? The other is what exactly is "their fair share"? The bandwagon to make those freeloaders pay their fair share started filling up quickly, and it only made sense. The rich had too much money, they weren't paying their fair share (if they were they wouldn't have so much money) and if we took more from them we could fund these social programs. Then the poor and needy would benefit (and the sponsoring politicians would get the votes). The rich wouldn't be hurt, after all they have too much money anyway. Laisse fare is doing a terrible job of distributing the wealth so we'll do it for them. How do we know the rich have too much money? The government said so... Now, everyone is better off. Right?
Wrong. Higher taxes stifle economic growth. Handouts (entitlements) to the disadvantaged discourages them from working. The "rich" are the ones who start and operate businesses (that pay taxes) and hire people, i.e. they create jobs. Government cannot create jobs and expand the economy. Taxing the rich increasingly more means there will be fewer jobs. This is all basic economics. If you went to college and don't know that, then you simply weren't paying attention.
The liberals cry, "But these social programs are absolutely necessary. Our elderly and poor will die without them." Jesus himself was about helping the downtrodden. Taking care of our neighbor. It is our moral and Christian obligation to do this. Besides, even the Bible said, "Tis easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than get a rich man into heaven". Sounds pretty clear to me, rich people aren't nearly as important as poor people. They're not even worthy of heaven. We're actually doing them a favor, they're not about to go to heaven as long as they are rich, so...We can help them and the poor at the same time.
So where did conservatives come from and how did they acquire those peculiar characteristics?
From the time the first settlers came to America till the twentieth century in order to survive and provide for a family, they had to hunt, fish and farm the land. It required tremendous work. If one took from someone who happened to have more than themselves it was called stealing and the punishment was often getting shot or hung from a tree. It was universally understood that it was each for his own. No one else, including the government was going to provide anything for you. If you wanted to have more you simply worked harder and longer. American conservatism has it's roots in those times. Individualism was once respected and admired. These were proud people who took care of themselves and expected others to do the same.
During Roosevelt's and Kennedy's time there was a nice balance to Democrat's and Republican's ideals. And civility. Instead of a balance now we have tension and conflict between the parties. Each has a platform of slandering and defiling the other. Trashing is probably a more appropriate word. You do whatever you have to do to win and that includes humiliating, insulting, falsely accusing, associating them with bottom feeders, digging up dirt (no time limits on how far back you can go), nothing is off limits. The labels 'Democrats and 'Republicans' are words associated with the concept of a free and independent nation of people who value freedom. With a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If we keep electing the kind of people that we did eight years ago and like those that are running for office now, we're going to regret it. Our country is going in the direction of becoming a socialistic government and we the people are allowing it to happen. This, in spite of the fact that we have all the tools to maintain the brilliant form of government that we have had for over two-hundred years. Three independent branches of government, checks and balances, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, free elections, leaders elected by the people, we have it all. And in spite of that...
So, are you a liberal or a conservative? Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?...
No comments:
Post a Comment