We hear it all the time. Democrats versus Republicans; liberals versus conservatives; communists/socialists versus capitalists. Media outlets of all shapes and sizes exhaust this theme in order to push their ideology to its readers or viewers. Many times, its of a "liberal" persuasion. There is also conservative-based media, namely Fox News, although they present slightly more balanced coverage than its liberal counter-parts. Radio is almost entirely conservative.
I'm not here to talk about the media, however. I'm here to explain why both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and socialists and communists are hypocrites based on what they advocate on their platform. Both parties have consistently turned away from their core beliefs to pander to special interests. Some may suggest special interests groups are merely large organizations of constituents with the goal of influencing their elected representatives. Although this is technically true, what good is a party ideology if its members adjust their philosophy at the mention of unlimited campaign funding? Special interests have changed entire party platforms. What was once a party of non-interventionism, the Republicans are now a party of pre-emptive war and "national security". What was once a party of "the little man", the Democrats now court the vote of corporations and Wall Street banks.
Neither party has done much good for this country in the last decade. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all of the arguments between the two. The way I see it, neither party has an official platform since they claim to advocate one policy, but endorse the complete opposite. Yet they know this, which leads me to question the integrity of our elected leaders. Do they really have the best interests of the American people in mind? Or are they just worried about their own well-being? Currently, there are congressional representatives still holding public office for almost five decades! Here are the names of a few:
John Dingell - served in the House for 56 consecutive years.
Daniel Inouye - served in the House and Senate consecutively for 52 years
John Conyers - served in the House for 47 consecutive years
These are the top three. Now, how do you think they're able to maintain their position for so long? Is it because they are outstanding reps who've served their constituency to the best of their ability? It's possible. Maybe even likely. But would you believe it? With all the corruption running amok in our government, the notion they truly care about the country is laughable. When unions, corporate giants, and lobbyists come knocking while waving wads of cash and promising significant campaign donations in return for a specific vote on a particular bill, it's no wonder some of these individuals have held their post as long as they have.
Allow me to get to provide examples before I continue on what could potentially be a never-ending rant. Let's start with the Republicans. In regards to core principles, the self-proclaimed party of fiscal discipline does not practice what they preach. Every election year we hear the cliche campaign pitch of cutting spending and balancing the budget. Yet, it never happens. For example, this year Congressman Paul Ryan (R -WI), chair of the Budget Committee, proposed a "Republican" budget that was a supposed contrast to the president's previously disapproved budget. Although he did cut spending by roughly 3 trillion, his budget was proposing $3.6 trillion in government spending and also would've increased the deficit over a ten-year period. So, if I understand it correctly, Republicans believe they are being fiscally responsibly by spending less than the Democrats even though they still spend like Democrats. That is not a true cut in spending. That is not a balanced budget.
Moving away from politicians, let's get to the conservative public. What does a traditional conservative believe? Limited government, free markets, strong national defense, non-interventionism. So why would someone who supports limited government insist the government enforce morality through legislation? Why would they support the Patriot Act, which gives our government permission to spy on us without a warrant? That's not limited government. It's authoritarianism.
Why would a traditional conservative support preemptive and on-going wars, the expansion of an American empire, and trillions of dollars to pay for them while simultaneously calling for cuts in the budget?
Unfortunately, this philosophy is not a new brand of conservatism. In fact, in the 18th century, conservatives were described as "members of the establishment who opposed [change] and wanted to maintain a theocratic system of government based on royalty, where the working-class people were disenfranchised and paid taxes and fees to the wealthy aristocracy" (Price, 2004). Sounds a lot like the Religious Right.
In contrast to modern-day conservatives, true limited-government, constitution-loving individuals were labeled "liberals", but not in the modern day sense. The classical view of liberalism is more aligned with the Libertarian Party. Liberalism sees a government with too much power as dangerous to a free society, one where an individual is allowed to make their own choices and take their own risks, as long as they don't interfere or affect the rights of others. This includes economics. Basically, liberalism is the closest thing to anarchy without the actual anarchy! Liberalism is not unreasonable, though. It understands that people must be punished for crimes towards others. It understands the basic functions of a government (i.e. maintaining a standing military, emergency services, and funding infrastructure projects). However, it does not allow for the government to augment its power at the expense of its citizens' rights. This philosophy is what Republicans and conservatives should be embracing, since they are the ones calling for it.
On the other hand, Democrats are not much better. In fact, their hypocrisy is much easier to reveal. For instance, Democrats and/or liberals (modern version) believe the government has no control over a woman's reproductive rights. They scream for choice, referring to Roe v. Wade as their "constitutional right". Yet, when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they wish to see it eradicated. This is a common hypocrisy because liberals love to argue that conservatives hide behind the first amendment...second amendment... fourth amendment...so on. But when a liberal politician, or a liberal member of the media says something controversial, they themselves run to the first amendment and declare "freedom of speech". However, this only works if it aligns with their views. Liberals are some of the most tolerant people... until you disagree with them. When this happens, they become the intolerant bigots.
The Democrats in our government lean on the principle of liberty in an individual's personal life, but think they're too stupid to take care of themselves financially. They tax, spend, and regulate our businesses to the brink of ruin. They insist we need large government programs like Social Security because we're not intelligent or responsible enough to plan for our own retirement. They maintain other failing programs like Medicaid and Medicare because we can't pay for our own medical care. Though the issue with health care is generally true, the reason millions of our citizens cannot pay is due to the rising prices in virtually every industry of our economy. Rising prices are a result of inflation -- an increase in the money supply. Democrats claim that printing money and injecting it into the economy creates economic growth. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's simple logic. The more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So why would the dollar be more valuable if you create more out of thin air? Blame this on Keynesian economics -- the belief that government spending causes economic prosperity.
Keynesian economics has been an utter failure wherever it's been implemented. Do you need a good example? Google "Greece economy" and you'll discover why they are in the financial bind they are in today, as well as the rest of Europe.
However, it gets worse. Liberals/Democrats today proclaim their fervent support of civil rights and racial equality. Yet they support policies like affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, both of which view individuals as part of a group (usually race). Ironically enough, it was southern Democrats, many of whom were members of the Klu Klux Klan, who passed Jim Crow laws and led the charge against the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.
Both ideologies have it wrong. A party cannot push for freedom on one end while calling for control on the other. R.G. Price explains it well:
"Now it has to be explained why these views are all wrong and actually mask political and economic realities. Free-market capitalism and Liberalism (in both the economic and social sense) go hand in hand with each other. It is the fact that people fail to understand this that makes the current "Conservative" movement in America so misdirected. Capitalism is actually the driving force behind the breakdown of all of the old bonds of society.... While supporting 'capitalism', conservatives denounce social liberalism, yet they fail to recognize that market capitalism promotes, and benefits from, social liberalism. They support capitalism and then complain about the effects of capitalism without seeing the relationship between the two things.... 'Conservative' citizens who support right-wing politicians are in fact contributing to the very problems that they are trying to oppose, and the result is that as the economics shift more and more to the Right, the social situation becomes more and more liberal. The conservatives then keep pressing more and more to the Right, thinking that that is the answer, but in fact it is not. The fact is that social liberalism is beneficial to corporations. The more liberal that society is, the more opportunities there are for making money..." (Price, 2004)
He goes further, this time debunking the Religious Right's contribution to the American political system:
".... This is where the fundamental break between American society and religious conservatism occurs.
Most major religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, are based on the idea of limiting an individual's desires. Fundamentally, religious societies are typically societies where people are encouraged to control their desires and limit their possessions and worldliness. Capitalist society, though, is based on the exact opposite of that. Despite the fact that FDR's New Deal appeared to be anti-business on its face, and despite the fact that the Keynesian economics of the post-WWII era in America relied on government intervention in the economy, this intervention was all designed to promote capitalism, and the means of doing that was through the promotion of consumerism.... This is why it is quite obvious that places like Las Vegas are in fact both extremely liberal and extremely capitalistic" (Price, 2004).
Why did I write this ridiculously long article on the hypocrisy of our two-party system? Because I'm fed up with people's ignorance. It seems like no one takes the time anymore to learn. Knowledge is power. If we the people ever plan on regaining such power, we have to obtain knowledge. Without it, we're clueless and will subsequently be digging our own graves.
REFERENCES:
Price, R.G. (2004). Redefining the political spectrum - the rational spectrum. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
*The link to the article above is a great read for political junkies like myself. It's well written and explained. I highly recommed you read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment