Perhaps Republicans - even the formers who write for this site would do well to look at all of their assumptions.
For example, it is a common place notion the Democrats passed and pass benefit programs mostly to purchase the affection of potential voters.
Yet if we look back to the beginnings of Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, they arose out of a genuine concern about the impact of poverty on Americans. And the focus was as much on rural folks and the elderly as it was on minorities.
From idea to idea, Republicans have honed ideas that might have been reasonable at first glance into weapons that have been further sharpened by the worst elements in America.
The results are for all to see.
Dems might be overwrought but they generally support ideas that are crafted to help people. Republicans are simply exciting anger - again and again. (Thus even the drill baby drill chants were much more about anger than about a practical program).
Yes, that was mostly the aim of the left's so-called identity politics, to identify groups who needed to be specifically INCLUDED in the rights and privileges afforded by the constitution. Though they deny it, the right has their own version of identity politics, a white identity politics whose purpose is to EXCLUDE.
Exactly! All politics is identity politics... class, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, all of them are part of the political calculus of a thriving democracy.
The only place where identity politics can't exist is in authoritarian regime which may explain why the exclusionists are chomping at the bit to impose their identity as the only operative mode of politics.
I wonder if that dichotomy (Democrats want to help; Republicans want to hurt) is a winning campaign message. It’s short, easily repeatable, and has a reiterative hook with help/hurt.
I agree. The agenda of the right seems to be about punishing people they view as undeserving, without giving weight to what is best for our country as a whole, especially on the global stage. As it is now, our standing on basic global metrics are much worse than “American exceptionalism” would have them believe. The saying familiar to most children, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”, applies to the way Republicans want to run the country.
People are inherently selfish and the natural view of the world is that of a zero-sum world--meaning that if someone else is getting they are taking it from me.
One of the contributing factors to the fall of various Democracies.
It isn't merely that people vote themselves gifts from the public purse--it is that those gifts tend to be selective and often punitive to those who do not get some--because they are Other.
So you have the fiscal problem, but more importantly you have a large social problem.
so what are the selective gifts? I don't see it. Thus food stamps for example are widely used across the US. And re medicaid, Dems voted to expand it. Republicans voted to deny it to their own people is states they control.
Most of these things come with a raft of limitations and qualifications that are intended to stop the "undeserving" from getting them. The reality is that it would likely be more efficient/effective to simply get rid of a lot of that stuff (when you look at what it costs to do it that way).
Many of the people who are against these things would be for them if they could be assured that they would get them, but those underserving people would not. A lot of the resistance to these things is not because these people do not want them, but because they don't want to give it to others. A simple examination of the rhetoric that comes from the right in this regard highlights this.
And another big part of the refusal is the refusal of the corporations to pay for it... or to institute the taxes to pay for it.
When you look at a lot that happens or is done, there is a willingness to deny others rights or actions that are felt to be entitlements by others. I can censor speech but when you can't. I can protest, but you can't.
Perhaps Republicans - even the formers who write for this site would do well to look at all of their assumptions.
For example, it is a common place notion the Democrats passed and pass benefit programs mostly to purchase the affection of potential voters.
Yet if we look back to the beginnings of Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, they arose out of a genuine concern about the impact of poverty on Americans. And the focus was as much on rural folks and the elderly as it was on minorities.
From idea to idea, Republicans have honed ideas that might have been reasonable at first glance into weapons that have been further sharpened by the worst elements in America.
The results are for all to see.
Dems might be overwrought but they generally support ideas that are crafted to help people. Republicans are simply exciting anger - again and again. (Thus even the drill baby drill chants were much more about anger than about a practical program).
Even in most of the intangible, possibly even performative things (see latinx) the aim is to increase inclusivity.
Yes, that was mostly the aim of the left's so-called identity politics, to identify groups who needed to be specifically INCLUDED in the rights and privileges afforded by the constitution. Though they deny it, the right has their own version of identity politics, a white identity politics whose purpose is to EXCLUDE.
Exactly! All politics is identity politics... class, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, all of them are part of the political calculus of a thriving democracy.
The only place where identity politics can't exist is in authoritarian regime which may explain why the exclusionists are chomping at the bit to impose their identity as the only operative mode of politics.
That's how I see things as well.
Democrats have some dumb ideas, and there are others that don't work well, but they mostly are trying to address problems and help people.
Republicans, meanwhile, are only about retaining power and sticking it to Democrats and others they dislike. It's just all hate, greed, and fear.
I saw this starting back in the 90s, but it's gotten much, much worse.
I wonder if that dichotomy (Democrats want to help; Republicans want to hurt) is a winning campaign message. It’s short, easily repeatable, and has a reiterative hook with help/hurt.
If it would work, Dems won't use it... They are the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! Always have been. It's depressing.
I agree. The agenda of the right seems to be about punishing people they view as undeserving, without giving weight to what is best for our country as a whole, especially on the global stage. As it is now, our standing on basic global metrics are much worse than “American exceptionalism” would have them believe. The saying familiar to most children, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”, applies to the way Republicans want to run the country.
People are inherently selfish and the natural view of the world is that of a zero-sum world--meaning that if someone else is getting they are taking it from me.
One of the contributing factors to the fall of various Democracies.
It isn't merely that people vote themselves gifts from the public purse--it is that those gifts tend to be selective and often punitive to those who do not get some--because they are Other.
So you have the fiscal problem, but more importantly you have a large social problem.
It may be the "human nature view" of the world, but I do not consider it "natural."
Correct, but we are talking about humans.
lol... darn, THAT's the problem...
so what are the selective gifts? I don't see it. Thus food stamps for example are widely used across the US. And re medicaid, Dems voted to expand it. Republicans voted to deny it to their own people is states they control.
Most of these things come with a raft of limitations and qualifications that are intended to stop the "undeserving" from getting them. The reality is that it would likely be more efficient/effective to simply get rid of a lot of that stuff (when you look at what it costs to do it that way).
Many of the people who are against these things would be for them if they could be assured that they would get them, but those underserving people would not. A lot of the resistance to these things is not because these people do not want them, but because they don't want to give it to others. A simple examination of the rhetoric that comes from the right in this regard highlights this.
And another big part of the refusal is the refusal of the corporations to pay for it... or to institute the taxes to pay for it.
When you look at a lot that happens or is done, there is a willingness to deny others rights or actions that are felt to be entitlements by others. I can censor speech but when you can't. I can protest, but you can't.
It isn't always money.