July
Essay.
I've been writing about the corruption in DC so often
that I'm thinking a breather is overdue. But, before I go there, let me
reiterate that until the corruption of special interest money is eliminated,
there's no possibility of reaching reasonable solutions to any of our many
problems no matter what the propagandists of your party tell you.
And,
speaking of propaganda, liberals have been led to believe that conservatives
don't give a damn about human suffering: Let 'em eat cake, we'll keep our money
under the mattress. And conservatives are led to believe that liberals want big
government and more spending regardless of results, particularly since it's
good for public sector employees and their unions.
There's lots of data to support
either side, and the propagandists are skilled at blending a few factoids into
their presentations. And why not? It's working; just listen to your friends,
read your favorite columnists, and put in your four hours per day watching TV.
The possibility that those of the opposite persuasion are of sound mind and
good heart is inconceivable. That many/most liberals actually care for those in
need and don't see any other way to help them. That many/most conservatives
care just as much but don't believe that government actions are an effective
way to help.
This propaganda war, this huge waste
of time, effort, and money will go on as long as we, the public, get off on it,
let it boil our blood, make us lust for revenge. Our politicians love it. They
needn't bother about governing, making policy, accounting for results. Even
when they screw up wildly, their followers support them, convinced that the
opposition is just seeking political advantage. And besides, they can always
find something with which to counterattack. What a fertile environment
for special interests, providing millions for attack ads and the prerequisite
responses.
Underlying all this, but not
responsible for it, is a philosophical divide. There are those who believe that
the rights of individuals are sacrosanct and those who believe that the rights
of society come first. The former believe that government's primary
responsibility is to protect the individual and his/her rights. The later feel
that government is responsible for society as a whole and should oblige
individuals to step aside when it is clearly for the good of society.
I would give examples of both sides
but I've learned from long experience that readers will instantly gravitate to
finding fault with the examples supporting the other side and thereby
miss an opportunity to consider the implications of the divide.
Question: Can you see any negative
consequences to your side of the divide, or is it all about the nutcases
on the other side?
Joe
Bakewell
No comments:
Post a Comment