However, it only took about two minutes for me to remember why it is that, though both parties are awful and their plans are mostly bad for America, Democrat core ideology is blatantly wrong and yet incredibly popular. This is, essentially, why I struggle to talk politics with Democrat voters more than I do with GOP voters even if I agree with neither.
What core beliefs do I mean? Mainly entitlements. Every candidate set out personal pet projects, 'rights', and laws that they see as 'essential' to either take care of people, or protect them from their own choices, or to punish people they deem 'too successful'. At one point, Hillary Clinton (who was the only one even slighty willing to defend Capitalism), declared that we need the government to 'save Capitalism from itself'. Marinate on that. A woman representing the establishment of a party that has contributed trillions to Corporate Welfare and Crony Capitalism and has happily created government sponsored monopolies wants to 'save Capitalism from itself'. It seems to me, Capitalism really only needs to be saved from the Government.
All the typical Democratic rhetoric was at the ball last night: War on the Middle Class/Women/Minorities/Poor etc..., Guaranteeing freebies, Job Creation, Campaign Finance Reform, Gun Control. But, no one offered any legitimate solutions to these 'problems' except more government with more power to stop 'evil' free citizens from exerting their natural impulse to brutalize others. Of course, these politicans are immune to such natural impulses.
Getting specific, these candidates would do well to think about some things if they do want to make America better rather than just buy votes for more power.
The Middle Class: Both parties are very interested in the middle class. That's been the case for almost ever, especially in American culture. Most people consider themselves Middle Class, so the undefined 'middle class' is a good way to speak to the 'mob' without saying so. But it is true that the middle class is being desperately squeezed by government. The problem is, both parties look at this as a tax situation when it is really not. The scourge of the middle class is a spending problem. You see, you could tax the rich at 100% and still not pay for our current spending, let alone the new spending projects many of these candidates are proposing. And who do you think pays when the rich cannot? The Middle Class. But forgetting that, every new spending project is undertaken on the backs of the social safety net programs that the middle class has already paid into (like Social Security). If we want to get real about what is best for the Middle Class, taxes are about the last on the list of problems.
Job Creation and Freebies: As has been pointed out numerous times to deaf ears, there is no such thing as a free lunch. We, as a society, have got to stop believing we can have things we didn't earn because the government will force others to give them to us. It's not only unreasonable, it is not morally sound either. Falling in this line of thought, Jobs are not entitlements. The government doesn't have jobs sitting in a drawer somewhere that they are just being stingy with and Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is going to start giving them out to people without jobs. Job creation is based on a pro-growth environment within the private market. Can you guess which party ardently opposes most pro-growth measures? Here is a hint: It's the same party that thinks they should save Capitalism from itself.
Profit Sharing: This sounds like a great idea. Of course the workers contribute to the profit, so they should get some of it. Well, they do. It's called a salary. If they buy shares into the company they get even more of a share of the profits. But let's say we have a government dictating terms of how much you have to pay workers 'back' for the profits you earned (even though you, the business owner, took ALL the risk associated with the business). What do you think that does to investment in more jobs? Or innovation? Or expansion? I'll tell you. It kills it. So, yes, your current workers might have a little more take home pay, but many other people will be without work because the job market will collapse. Does that sound reasonable? But that's a practical matter, idiologically, the idea that someone is entitled to anyone else's property is the essence of theft. It is also the essence of the Democratic Party.
Paid Family Leave: This is an issue about which the GOP should be more invested. This is an actual serious problem in this country. 50% of the workforce is female. Unless we want to give up on civilization and stop procreating, it logically follows that we need to have a reasonable work environment for new mothers and parents in general. The problem with the Democratic approach here is that their typical 'write legislation' solution will not work. Not well, at least. This is another problem with a private solution. This takes a change in mindset of the workforce. Private Unions for working parents would do far more to fix this problem than a bloated act of Congress. Because, in reality, what will happen if Congress gets its hands on this problem, is businesses will just find reasons to hire fewer women of childbearing years. In the current job market, they could easily do so. Let's say the government could force employers to hire such women. Extended paid leave is a serious moral and economic dilemma. While parents should be given freedom to stay with their children when needed, and their jobs should be protected, being paid by the tax payer for a full year of not working would be one of the biggest entitlement programs in history. It is simply not feasible in a country of 300+ million people. It would cripple government resources and be a more fantastic failure than Social Security.
Gun Control: Okay, guys. It is high time you recognize that no matter how much you make fun of 'gun culture' or how many SNL sketches actors do, guns are here to stay. They are not only a part of our culture, but they are protected by the Constitution no matter how hard you try to torture the 2nd Amendment into say they are not. I don't think background checks are a bad idea. I'd support them. But this is a red herring issue. Background checks will have very little effect on gun crime in America. Either these candidates know this and don't care, or they are willfully ignorant. Either way, why is this a main issue of a debate when we have so many bigger fish to fry?
Campaign Finance Reform: This is always a crowd-pleaser. Of course none of us want the government bought off by rich sponsors. Well, none of us but Trump. But thinking you can legistlate this problem away is a pipe dream. First of all, it violates the First Amendment. Secondly, the rich will ALWAYS seek to buy off the powerful. Always. It doesn't matter what you do, if the government has the power to regulate the market, the big players within the market will find ways to manipulate the government. This is precisely why a FREE market is preferable. In a free market, the powerful players have much less power to manipulate a regulating body to create monopolies. Any person with the will and a little seed money can compete with a company by providing better/cheaper goods and/or services. Instead to trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated (like buying off politicians), doesn't it make more sense to stop giving the easily corrupted any power to make or break companies?
As to individual performance, Clinton actually did very well. She did what she had to do, which is come of impassioned without being condescending. She was warm and likable. Just what she needed. Sanders did well too, and if you agree with his brand of economics, you will think he won the debate. In my opinion, neither won.
Jim Webb was the only candidate who looked remotely willing to compromise, non-divisive, and principled rather than ideological. If he switched parties tomorrow, he could probably out-poll both Trump and Carson. In fact, without the Libertarian option, I'd vote for Jim Webb over half of the GOP field. He highlights a problem with the primary process. He is probably the most reasonable candidate, which is why he doesn't have a hope in hell. Like his Republican counterpart, Rand Paul, those willing to step outside the base ideology to come up with legitimate solutions are punished by the primary process. I have no idea how to fix this problem, but it certainly insures that every election cycle we end up with polarizing candidates rather than those who want to work on real solutions.
O'Malley and Chafee were utterly forgettable, and I don't imagine they will stay in the race much longer, but I'll at least say Chafee seems like a nice guy with a a few issues that are really important to him. O'Malley is difficult to stomach. He does not seem genuine in the least and his record is shoddy at best.
All of this comes down to one thing - the basics of the Democratic ideology - that is, Democrats believe that most things are entitlements. If they are not already, they will start a campaign (usually backed by a celebrity spokesperson) to market a particular interest as a 'human right' so that it can become entitlements. They also believe that they are the educated elites needed to properly allocate such entitlements and 'rights'. They win elections by pitting minorities against the majority, except when it comes to wealth where they use 'the mob' to violate the property rights of the minority. They are identity politicians to the core with a strategy to keep people as dependent as possible on them. And this is why, I cannot stomach Democratic debates. But I'll keep watching because I'm a glutton for punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment