Thursday, May 10, 2012

Politics and Inconsistencies

I'm not too sure of all the reasons for it, but it seems that the Republican Party has evolved into the party that favors less government, smaller amounts of taxation, big corporations, people with $$$, military interventionism, people living with "family values," and being openly supportive of religion.

The Democratic Party likewise has evolved into one that favors more government, higher rates of taxation, people who are working for the government, more social welfare, shying away from military interventionism, less religion (or at least not bring up that indelicate subject), and being more broad-minded about family values.

Oh dear, I've probably offended some people here and there.

Anyway, it looks like we have at least two large groups of people in this country, one largely supporting the Republican Vision and the other supporting the Democratic Vision: but not with complete pleasure or comfort.  The fact is, neither side is prone to compromise, since it's seen as a sin of ideological impurity or lack of political fervor.

However, the Party of Less Government seems to dance to a different tune when they're in charge -- then it's spend, spend, spend and -- "wow!  Isn't government power neat?  Let's use it!"  And this sometimes translates into laws that attempt to police personal behavior, whether in terms of drug use, who one has sex with, what one watches or read in books or the internet, or so forth.

And there's the pork legislation.  It's a rare senator or representative who eschews this.  Remember the Bridge to Nowhere?

The Party of More Government is selective on where it wants more government -- less defense spending or NASA; more on entitlements or social programs or things that are directed to special interest groups to keep their precious votes in the bag.

My point is that less government is the desire of people who don't have it to use; when they get it, it's suddenly transformed into something special and acceptable!

Also:  Maybe we need a little more compromise.  Perhaps our pure as the driven snow Republicans and our shrinking virgin Democrats ought to allow going to second base, at least!  But in order to be receptive to this possibility, each should rid themselves of their special claims to the moral high ground.  This is a failing that both ends of the political spectrum are pleased to indulge in.


Anonymous said...

WTF the chicken?

Mike said...

You keep talking like this and Bilbo will ask you to marry him. Or at least be his mistress.

Bilbo said...

As the old saying goes, where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit. If you're in power, the urge to wield that power as you wish is very strong; if you're out of power, it's easier just to attack whatever the party in power does. The issue for me isn't "more government" or "less government," it's "smart government." Demonizing government - especially without offering any realistic alternative policies of your own, a la the GOP - is stupid. And government by utter refusal to compromise on anything is equally stupid. And what IS it with the chicken?

Elvis Wearing a Bra on His Head said...

In general, it's less risky to attack or criticize concrete entities like government or policies than to offer alternatives. The party in power is stuck with the albatross of government, which is not going to be well-liked, anyway. Have you heard anything in the way of praise for the I.R.S.?

Big Sky Heidi said...

At least with a chicken you can get eggs. All the Dems and the GOP make is chickenshit.

Bilbo said...

I wish I'd said that! You rock, Heidi!

Grand Crapaud said...

I'm curious about the chicken too.

eViL pOp TaRt said...

I chose the chicken because it was cute; but it dawned on me that it could be symbolic of the lack of courage that the politicians have shown.