Saturday, October 30, 2010

The Trouble with Democrats

I am often accused, by my politcally conservative friends and relations, of being a Liberal; a poor, misguided young lady; a Socialist; and, well, much worse.

The thing is, the Republicans are easy targets. I have plenty of beef with Democrats, Liberterians, the Communist Party of America, and probably everyone else. The Republicans, paddling their horseshit canoe down the Desperation River are comic relief--when they aren't chipping away at civil rights and selling off our country, piece by piece, to the highest bidder.

The Democrats are scarcely better, enjoying just as much pork as the GOP while discovering creative new ways of failing themselves, their party, their supporters and the American people.

At least the Republicans are upfront about their sleaze. Democrats build on their constituents desire for compassionate government. The candidates will talk about their commitment to Education/Environment/Social Services right up until they become entrenched in the U.S. Congress, at which point they become all of what they once railed against. I'm looking at you, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The emblems of our major political parties need update: I propose the image of the GOP be changed from elephant to a Boss Tweed character and the image of the DNC be changed from donkey to that of Mr. Natural.

I believe it is impossible for a candidate with uncompromising integrity and vision to be elected to any position of authority in this country. You see it in everyday life, the buffoonish, despotic, Zig Ziglar sales managers at your office -- that's who your democratic government is representing.

Both parties share one concern: winning. That ain't leadership, friends.

I don't give a damn about an individual's religous beliefs or stance on moral issues when looking for politicians worthy of support. I am not loyal to any political party. My concern is simple: show me your experience in public office and tell me specifically what your ideas are for single-handedly improving our government. The more rhetoric you blather, the smaller you become. The more you act the sideshow blowhard, the less credible you become.

Prior to every election I read, listen and research. I care who is elected to my local school board and who remains on the State Judge's bench as much as who is running for Congress or the Presidency. Too often I am forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Pundits favor a scenario wherein we have a Democratic President and a Republican-controlled Congress. Sounds good on paper. Others decry the result of 30 years of Republican control, the result being our current Great Recession. I agree with that assessment but can't imagine 30 years of Democrat control being much of an improvement. Democrats are just as likely to kowtow to the plutocracy as Republicans are to anyone who flashes a wad of cash their way.

I challenge you find an experienced politician in America with clean hands and a clear head. I admire President Obama more than I did President Bush because Obama has Congressional experience AND came out of the Chicago cesspool remarkably unscathed. Obama sought expert counsel (from the likes of Warren Buffet, for example) and mostly chose excellent advisors (with the notable exception of Rahm Emanuel). Obama seeks to emulate Lincoln. I'm under no illusion that Obama has clean hands -- that's impossible. But he does seem to have a clear head and I suspect most of the people whispering in his ear have more integrity than, say, Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

Of course I may be wrong about that. However, McCain/Palin was undoubtedly the greater evil and I absolutely believe the country is better off with Obama/Biden.

The Trouble with Democrats is that they fail. But if the choice is between progressing but just missing the mark or going pellmell backwards (as Conservative Fundamentalists wish), I'll vote Democrat every time.

We need taxes and we need to spend those taxes on various government programs. We need to protect the Environment. We need to preserve our Civil Rights and expand them to include other disenfranchised Americans as our country grows and changes. We must invest in Education and help our sick, our elderly and our poor people to live decently. We owe it to our people who work so damn hard every day to empower that middle class, rather than taking their jobs, their house, their savings and retirement accounts and endangering the safety of their communities.

"Smaller government" "No Taxes"...these are nonsensical slogans. We need our government to do its job, plain and simple. We need more nerdy intellectuals and history buffs in public office, fewer demented showboaters. Look carefully at the people running for office in your neck of the woods. If your gut tells you they'll say anything to get elected and actually stand for nothing other than winning, you are right on the money, honey.

Democrats fail, that's their problem. They are too quick to compromise, selling out their base and ensnarling their party with infighting. Republicans fail, too, and usually more spectacularly, but are adept at projection and reassigning blame. Smoke and mirrors, P.T. Barnum style.

Democrats are weak, they fail constantly and they compromise themselves all the way over to the Right. But the Republicans are so ridiculous, so extreme, such hucksters, I (and a whole lot of the other American voters) have no choice but to choose the Dems' lesser evil.

Hey, GOP, get better candidates and we'll talk.


Blogger Anonymous Assclown said...

Let's say I wanted to feed the hungry in my hometown (or anywhere for that matter). Let's also say that I had $1,000 to spare. Would that money be better spent if I donated it to the Salvation Army or if I gave it to the federal government? Then let's say I had a million dollars and I wanted to give people jobs. Would I create more jobs by starting a small business (or expanding the one I already have) or give that money to the federal government?
Government redistribution is, by far, the least efficient and least effective method for getting help to where it's needed. And if greater monetary intake was the solution to our education and welfare woes, shouldn't you be able to find a correlation between $ per student and student performance? Shouldn't you be able to correlate welfare spending and the rate of recovery from poverty? In fact, the statistics largely support the opposite - the more generous the welfare package, the longer the recipients stay on government support, the higher rate of out-of-wedlock births and higher the unemployment rate.
I don't oppose higher taxes because I'm stingy (statistically speaking, republicans contribute more to charity than democrats). I oppose higher taxes because it's counter-productive. Even Obama stipulated the fact that higher capital gains tax rates tend to result in lower intake of tax money (yet he still supported it out if "fairness").
Your version of government utopia already exists in Michigan and California. How's that working out for you?

8:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home