Friday, July 29, 2016

Thoughts Formed on My Drive From Texas.

For the past two weeks and three days I’ve been on vacation. I’ve visited my daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, I’ve had a chance to visit my sisters, brother, and brother-in-law, and finally to stay with a very old (as in longtime) friend and his wife in Texas.  It has been a wonderful couple of weeks; during which I’ve paid scant attention to the political posturing of either the Republicans or the Democrats.  From what I have seen it appears I missed little or nothing of substance.

Yesterday, on the drive home from Glen Rose, Texas I did happen to catch some comments from Ms. Pelosi, (D-CA) who was apparently talking with someone on PBS about the problem Ms. Clinton will have with “non-college educated white males” who, she believes, historically vote against their economic self-interest because of the 3 Gs (Guns, Gays and God).  She went on to clarify that a belief in God really meant opposition to a woman’s right to choose abortion as the preferred solution to an unwanted pregnancy.  I had about eight hours of driving to think about this interview, and here is what I came away with.

I would like to offer just a couple of thoughts on this obviously elitist view of a senior Democratic Party politician.

First, the idea only the government can provide economic benefits to an individual is one of the central themes of any party wishing to move toward a totalitarian government where control of the population is derived from the government’s decision on who can work, and what wages they will receive.  We see this in all totalitarian regimes regardless of economic basis.  Dictators, Czars, Commissars, or Presidents for Life, facist, socialist or communist, it doesn’t matter.  Control of individual income allows the government to control the political debate, and encourage the dependency of the individual to the central administration. 

Consider, for a moment, the current state of affairs in Venezuela where after Victor Chavez’s move to socialism, the dependence on oil exports, and spending on social programs far in excess of income from the state owned businesses the economy has collapsed.  For most citizens this is a time of increasingly severe economic hardship, but somehow the political leadership seems to be increasingly wealthy as they skim their take from the oil exports.  The shelves may be empty for the average working man or woman, but not for the elites.  How is this different from the capitalist system and graft at the top of the government it was supposed to fix?

So my question is, at the end of the day is there any difference between crony capitalism or crony socialism for the average citizen?  Ms. Pelosi’s position is a strong central government controlling the livelihoods for the average person is best, and if the leaders of that strong central government can shake a few dollars of compensation for themselves, or a few perks like free flights home courtesy of the taxpayers it is a small price to pay for the benefits the average man or woman receive.

Now I’d like to talk about the 3 Gs Ms. Pelosi referred to.

Guns… The Democratic Party has long made gun control a central plank in their platform.  Pulling out all the celebrities and social media engineers they can find to vilify the NRA, semi-automatic rifles, and even handguns, they have convinced a large number of Americans the protections of the second amendment are no longer relevant (a position supported by a large number of jurists, including a majority of the US Supreme Court justices).  The approach they take is to appeal to the emotions that arise from the illegal use of a firearm to kill and maim the innocent.  The question they seem unable to answer is how do they propose solving the problems that stem from the already illegal use and ownership of guns?  If they believe in confiscation of all firearms, then why not just propose the abandonment of the second amendment?  I know, I know, that would be a tough sell and why would we ever expect any political power, or its spokes-people to be honest with the average citizen?  Hmmmm, but it does seem to tie in nicely with her belief that a strong central government should control the economic well-being of the average citizen, and confiscation would certainly limit armed rebellion.

Gays.  I didn’t know that it was only non-college educated white men who had an issue with the LGBT movement.  I learn new things every day and I guess this was my learning opportunity yesterday.  I seem to recall only a few of years ago Ms. Clinton and President Obama both voiced their concerns with the movement, but apparently there was a memo out about the political voting block they represented so any previous moral objections have been overcome.  It must be that only non-college educated white men find value in maintaining a consistent position on their beliefs.  For the record I’d like to know who speaks for all these men?  Because to be honest most of the men I talk with really don’t give a damn what two consenting adults do, they just don’t want it thrown in their face day in and day out as is the current fashion.

And finally we come to God.  I found it incredible that someone who claimed to be a practicing Catholic just a couple of years ago would finally come out and admit that a belief in God meant you opposed abortion.  If that is true, then it must correlate that if you support abortion you deny God.  I wonder if all the Christian feminists of my generation got that memo?  I know a number of people who have said they believe in a just and righteous God, but have also said they believe a woman has a right to choose to end the life of a developing fetus.  While I choose not to challenge their beliefs, in either the pro-abortion movement or religious faith, it appears that Ms. Pelosi believes the two are incompatible.  Hopefully the DNC will be issuing a memo on this so the party faithful can get in line.

1 comment:

Mitch DeLaRosa said...

The older I get, the more I think politics tries to chase after the humanity that it can never fully define. I think each human society is built of four groups: (1) The Leaders (elites, trend-setters, whatever) that will rise to the top no matter what political system they find themselves in (2) The Doers - those hard-working, principle-believing souls who "drink the Koolaid" and strive to achieve in whatever construct they find themselves; (4) the Followers - folks who are swayed by the moment and will "go with the flow" in whatever direction the flow is because "everybody is doing it....", and (4) the Ne'er Do Wells -- those souls at the bottom of the ladder who through circumstance of birth or complete lack of motivation must be cared for by someone else. I think in America, the Republican Party houses the majority of Groups 1 and 2, and they carry mostly disdain for Group 4 and pray that Group 4's members don't show up at major elections in too large a numbers. The Democrats THRIVE on convincing as many Group 4 voters as they can muster, and they realize that if Group 4 delivers, Democrat members of Groups 1 and 2 can carve out a nice living for themselves exploiting the hopes of Group 4. The REAL BATTLEGROUND is for Group 3. This group is busy living life, working paycheck to paycheck, watching Monday Night/Thursday Night/Friday Night/Saturday/Sunday Night football, taking more expensive vacations than they should, and more concerned with the Oscar and Grammy Award nominees than the nominees that will govern their country and their lives. Group 3 is swayed by the Republicans when the mood swings toward patriotism, ol' time religion, or getting our house in order, while Democrats entice Group 3 when they offer some "sparkle", something new, trendy, CHANGE! (a.k.a. Obama) Since the size of Group 3 can never be fully quantified, the struggle of which philosophy is omnipotent will never be solved.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...