Many people try to either demonize or romantacize politicians, depending on whether they like them or not. However, most politicians can be understood by the simple economic premise that all men seek out their own best interest. Let us apply that premise to Democrat politicians and see if we can come to a conclusion as to why they vote and act the way they do.
What is in a Democrat politician's best interest? To get more votes so he or she can get reelected when the time comes. What policies does he come to in order to get more votes? Let's start with illegal immigration. Aside from the fact that democrats as a whole are less likely to respect the law than their republican counterparts, the condoning of illegal immigration by democrats simply comes down to votes. The more hispanics that come into the country, the more votes democrats receive. Now, these votes may come years down the road as the children born to these illegals come of age, but they are sure votes nonetheless.
How do these politicians get the average American to vote as if illegal immigration is good for our country? They use the most powerful word in the American's vocabulary: racist. There is no word in the history of our country, and perhaps the world, that comes with more power than this word. I could and probably will write a whole blog post dedicated to this one word, but for now I'll just leave it at that. When one speaks out against illegal immigration, he is labelled a racist just for using the word illegal. When the same person takes the next step and points out that illegal immigrants, their children, and their children's children are much more likely than the average citizen to be on welfare, to place unnecessary stress on our public schools by being the poor students that they typically are, to commit crimes against society, to buy and sell drugs, etc., etc.; that person is not only a racist, but a hate mongerer to boot. Nobody wants that label, so few people actually speak the truth about illegal immigration.
What about welfare? Does welfare actually help people as a whole get on their feet and become productive citizens again? No. Again, a simple principle of economics will show us that as poverty becomes more and more appealing (meaning the more welfare we give out), the more people will want to be in poverty. Some may argue that nobody wants to be in poverty, but I beg to differ. A man chooses to be lazy, he chooses to get a low paying job and only work the bare minimum, or (now this is the democrat's dream) he chooses to not work at all and live off of food stamps in government housing for the rest of his life. So as we can see, welfare adds votes to democrats by keeping people in ignorance and poverty, the two biggest boons to the democrat ballot.
To conclude, we can see that democrats are just like any other person; they seek out their own best interest. They are able to appear compassionate and hopeful to the masses by giving out something for nothing, but all they do is create more and more poverty-striken voters. The only way to get people out of poverty is the republican way: he who wishes to eat must work. Or, to put it better, the only way to get people out of poverty is God's way. I think it was He who said, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground..."
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Belief vs. Reality Part 1
As I have become more and more interested in politics during the past few years of my life, I have realized how different my own views are compared to the actions of the party of which I am a part. After realizing this, I decided to take a look at the professed beliefs of each major political party and compare them to the actual reality that the politicians of these parties effect through legislation. The conclusion that I have reached is that neither party even attempts to abide by its own precepts.
I will start with the Republican party. An true republican believes in freedom in the truest sense of the word. This means that he thinks a man or business should be free to earn a living or make a profit without help from the government. If he fails, he does not expect the government to pick up his tab.
A republican believes that man is responsible for his own destiny. He believes in low taxes and small government. He does not support medicare, social security, or any other government-run safety net. If a person needs these things, it is because he hasn't worked hard enough in his life to earn a retirement with health benefits (or he has worked hard enough and wasn't disciplined enough to save for retirement).
How has the leadership of the republican party lived up to these ideals? While it is true that republican leaders have historically lowered income taxes during their tenures in office, they have not reduced the size of government commensurate with the lowered income. What does this mean? This means that republican administrations simply find other ways to tax Americans without calling it a tax. They call it issuing treasury bonds. The gross national debt has increased substancially with every republican administration in recent history. Reagan ballooned government spending (although this is partly justified by the fact that he won the cold war). Bush Sr. increased national debt, and George W. Bush presided over the largest increase in government since the great socialist FDR.
How can republicans allow this? Why do they continue to elect leaders who share their views in word only, but not in deed? There can only be two explainations. The first is that the majority of republicans are ignorant of the actions of their elected leaders. Since most people only scrutinize politicians during the election season, perhaps we are too inclined to believe what we hear from polititians, rather that look into their records. The second is that republicans are simply the same as democrats. Democrats believe in tax increases for the rich simply because they are not rich (and those who are rich pay close to zero taxes thanks to great lawers and accountants). Many republicans believe in reduction of government only when it affects someone else. A republican farmer would be the first to tell you that welfare is for lazy bums, but tell him that government subsidies for farmers are just a polite way of describing welfare and he'll politely ask you to leave his property.
The only solution to this is for a third party to be formed. This party would be based on the same principles that made our country and every other notable civilization great. These principles include individual freedom, rule of law, and personal responsiblity. No society has ever become great through socialistic principles. This seems to be lost on republicans and democrats alike.
I will start with the Republican party. An true republican believes in freedom in the truest sense of the word. This means that he thinks a man or business should be free to earn a living or make a profit without help from the government. If he fails, he does not expect the government to pick up his tab.
A republican believes that man is responsible for his own destiny. He believes in low taxes and small government. He does not support medicare, social security, or any other government-run safety net. If a person needs these things, it is because he hasn't worked hard enough in his life to earn a retirement with health benefits (or he has worked hard enough and wasn't disciplined enough to save for retirement).
How has the leadership of the republican party lived up to these ideals? While it is true that republican leaders have historically lowered income taxes during their tenures in office, they have not reduced the size of government commensurate with the lowered income. What does this mean? This means that republican administrations simply find other ways to tax Americans without calling it a tax. They call it issuing treasury bonds. The gross national debt has increased substancially with every republican administration in recent history. Reagan ballooned government spending (although this is partly justified by the fact that he won the cold war). Bush Sr. increased national debt, and George W. Bush presided over the largest increase in government since the great socialist FDR.
How can republicans allow this? Why do they continue to elect leaders who share their views in word only, but not in deed? There can only be two explainations. The first is that the majority of republicans are ignorant of the actions of their elected leaders. Since most people only scrutinize politicians during the election season, perhaps we are too inclined to believe what we hear from polititians, rather that look into their records. The second is that republicans are simply the same as democrats. Democrats believe in tax increases for the rich simply because they are not rich (and those who are rich pay close to zero taxes thanks to great lawers and accountants). Many republicans believe in reduction of government only when it affects someone else. A republican farmer would be the first to tell you that welfare is for lazy bums, but tell him that government subsidies for farmers are just a polite way of describing welfare and he'll politely ask you to leave his property.
The only solution to this is for a third party to be formed. This party would be based on the same principles that made our country and every other notable civilization great. These principles include individual freedom, rule of law, and personal responsiblity. No society has ever become great through socialistic principles. This seems to be lost on republicans and democrats alike.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Achieving Justice Through...Injustice?
One of the themes of Boris Pasternak's masterpiece, Doctor Zhivago, is the attempt, and utter failure, of bringing about justice through unjust means. Although the lessons of history and sound reason teach us that the only way to build the just society is through just means, modern-day politians seek to convince us that the only way to acheive fairness is by being unfair to those who are not loud enough in their views to offer any resistance. If this policy is named for what it is and presented to any rational human being, that person will, without hesitation, denounce it as utterly preposterous. However, we live in a society that wishes to impose guilt upon the guiltless and punishment upon the innocent.
Of which policy am I speaking? None other than the one that President Obama's nominee for supreme court justice upheld as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Upon hearing the case of Frank Ricci, Sonia Sotomayor agreed that the city of New Haven, Connecticut does indeed have a right to discriminate against him and seventeen other non-black firefighters. Why does the city have this right? Because upon taking a standard test to determine who is qualified for promotion within the fire station, no black firefighters passed the test. Since no black men passed the test, it must have been racist and, therefore, unjust.
Rather than pounce upon this story as yet another example of the injustice of our society, the New York Times merely offers it in passing as one of the objections of Republicans. Why do Democrats not object to it? Why doesn't all of America object to it? We must learn that racial equality, if that is our stated goal, can only be aquieved through racial equality. Can it be obtained in any other way?
If our country is to live up to its ideals of freedom and justice for all, if it is to follow Martin Luther King's dream, and if it is to continue to be a light on a hill and a beacon of democracy to all nations; then it must stop rewarding people based on color, but on talent; it must stop giving a helping hand up to one group, by allowing them to step upon the backs of another. Only justice will bring about a just society. May we always remember to promote those who promote equality, not of race, but of ability.
Of which policy am I speaking? None other than the one that President Obama's nominee for supreme court justice upheld as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Upon hearing the case of Frank Ricci, Sonia Sotomayor agreed that the city of New Haven, Connecticut does indeed have a right to discriminate against him and seventeen other non-black firefighters. Why does the city have this right? Because upon taking a standard test to determine who is qualified for promotion within the fire station, no black firefighters passed the test. Since no black men passed the test, it must have been racist and, therefore, unjust.
Rather than pounce upon this story as yet another example of the injustice of our society, the New York Times merely offers it in passing as one of the objections of Republicans. Why do Democrats not object to it? Why doesn't all of America object to it? We must learn that racial equality, if that is our stated goal, can only be aquieved through racial equality. Can it be obtained in any other way?
If our country is to live up to its ideals of freedom and justice for all, if it is to follow Martin Luther King's dream, and if it is to continue to be a light on a hill and a beacon of democracy to all nations; then it must stop rewarding people based on color, but on talent; it must stop giving a helping hand up to one group, by allowing them to step upon the backs of another. Only justice will bring about a just society. May we always remember to promote those who promote equality, not of race, but of ability.
Welcome
Well, this is the first posting of my new blog...I have wanted to start a blog for some time now and now I finally have made the time to do it. I wasn't sure what I wanted to write about, but I think that any idea that I come across that would serve to improve the human condition if implemented in an individual life or in society as a whole would be a worthy topic to discuss. Therefore, I will endeavor to write about those political, social, and individual issues that I read about in the New York Times or in other news publications, which merit comment. I hope you enjoy what you read and if you have any comments or would like to debate any of my assertions, please feel free to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
