Let me get this straight …
When it comes to economics, the general position of the current Republican party seems to be this: if most of the money flow ends up going to the top 1 percent of the population, that’s good and evidence of a healthy “free market”; if some of the money flow ends up going to help the other 99 percent of the population (which, in turn, ends up helping them live better lives), that’s bad and evidence of socialism and, just maybe, fascism. (This claim is made despite the fact that government intervention is complicit in either of these outcomes.)
Regardless of general political philosophy—conservative, progressive, libertarian, whatever—how can anyone reasonably think this position is worth supporting (unless you are among, or are a direct beneficiary of, the 1 percent)? Even if you don’t object to this in principle, how can you support this position while standing in opposition to improvements for public services such as education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and healthcare?
The current Republican agenda is focused on protecting the rich and elevating selfishness at the expense of the rest of the country. And this gives them the right to make an exclusive claim on patriotism, denouncing opponents as anti-American threats to democracy?
I’m just baffled …
Wed, Sep 23, 2009
Culture