Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios.
Are you speaking of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"? If so, then you're admitting a slanted point of view when you see the difference filtered through the eyes of liberals ("most liberals I know"). How about seeing it through the eyes of classical liberal "conservatives" such as the tea-partiers that liberals love to denigrate. They don't like or agree with liberals and so-called "conservatives" with either a D or R in front of their name who are "maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially." They are very much against the "crony capitalism," that, perhaps you've failed to notice, is supported by the Dems as well and who receive as much or more from big business as Repubs. The massive growth in wealth and power of both corporations and the Federal Government has risen under both parties, even though they may mouth promises and slogans to the contrary. There is a "progressive," anti-Constitutional belief in big central government power in both parties--the Dems just being farther down that road at this point than the Repubs, though a 100 years ago, Republicans were leading the progressive march. It is nearly useless to talk about that mushy center of both parties that more or less coalesces along the path of central power both in government and in business "too large to fail."
Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity.
The problem with this overreaching centralized power is that it sees all decisions on what's "best for the country as a whole" as its responsibility. Under the system this country was founded, most of those decisions began with individuals at local and State levels, and was fueled by an engaged citizenry who valued and were Constitutionally empowered to practice self government. The Central power was limited, though powerful within those limitations. Now, both parties have, approved by willing progressive accomplices in the Supreme Court, transferred much individual and local power to the Federal Government, and a few decide for all "what is best for the country as a whole."
It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes.
Adjusting various tax rates for various people is more of a political trick for power and goes against the only "equality" that the Constitution respects and a country of free individuals must have--equality before the law. It's a class war smokescreen to appease the many into thinking they are benefitting against those who oppress them, and are being protected by a nanny state that is actually making them dependent on continuous government growth to ensure that they needn't worry too much--the government will carry out the final two freedoms of FDR--freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, want and fear are two of the greatest motivators of individual action and responsibility. Once the government can take that burden from you, you are from then on in its care.
The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.
|
I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.