The Virtue of Compassionate Government

I hear Teabagger complaints about government. One of them is that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support things they don't believe in. They should get to choose where their money goes.

But society and government exist to ensure that all members benefit, not just those who are "liked." Supporting only those who are liked leads inevitably to discrimination on the basis of prejudice. Teabaggers have no problem discriminating against non-Christians, people of color, and so forth. But this is not only contrary to the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It also defies social reality. Equal treatment is a legitimate expectation in our society. Failure to recognize this expectation leads first to frustration - and then to aggression. And teabaggers will be shocked, SHOCKED at the result.

Teabaggers worship private enterprise. But business is NOT concerned with the General Welfare of the people. It is concerned with individual profit. Where there is no personal profit, there will be no private enterprise. This is where democratic government steps in, to ensure that citizens receive benefits they should receive, as citizens. According to Teabagger ethics, where there is no personal profit available, there is no value. Damn them to hell, or to rebirth as poor people.

Senator Marco Rubio , Teabagger darling, has commented that neighbors, churches, and synagogues used to help people in need. And personal savings. Oh, my naive young senator! Do you honestly believe that neighbors, churches and synagogues can remedy the effects of high unemployment? Or the high costs of health care? Do we have to affiliate with a church or synagogue to get health coverage, even if we believe their creed is absurd? What if our neighbors are as poor as we are, or they don't like us? How many of us can save enough money for cancer therapy, hip replacement or heart surgery? Your suggestions are laughable. And sad, because you believe them.

But such are the naive, egocentric and unthinking ethics of Tea Party Conservatism.

Cut and Hoard Republicans

Are worse than "tax and spend" Democrats.

Our economy is based on a market for goods and services. When Democrats "tax and spend," it means more demand in the market. More demand means more business, and more business means more jobs.

When Republicans cut taxes, and cut government spending, and hoard the national wealth for themselves, it means less demand in the market. They may buy more diamonds [Newt Gingrich] or more expensive wine [Paul Ryan], but they simply cannot compensate for the hundreds of millions of consumers now with less ability to consume. So the net result is less business and fewer jobs. If we cut taxes to "nothing," and government spending to "nothing," the result would be the same.

But, in the end, this is for Republicans a moral imperative, not a question of economic rationale. That is why the economy could collapse around them and they would feel self-righteous, even as their homes are devalued. Their austerity policies could lead to riots, and they would simply blame the rioters for not accepting the destruction of their dreams, the elimination of their expectations, and a lifetime of deprivation....so the rich could hoard more and more.

You simply cannot have both economic feudalism and political democracy. This leads to the question I believe we face in the U.S.: will we accept political feudalism, as the Republicans want, or take measures to "democratize" our economy?

Political Labels

Conservatives in our country have, for decades, created and parroted pejorative labels for liberals and Democrats. Perhaps because we lack their goose-stepping authoritarianism, liberals and progressives have not replied, in a unified fashion, with similar labels. Some liberals and progressives even dislike the notion of "stooping to the level" of Conservatives. Some argue that it "turns off" unaligned voters in the middle.

I did meet a lady who expressed disgust at the nasty political rhetoric she heard. But she did have, at that point, a bias in favor of Republicans, and it only appeared to disgust her when Democrats replied with nasty political rhetoric. It was okay as long as it was only Republicans saying foul things about Democrats.

To hell with that. Political labels evoke passions. Some people go to the polls from a sense of duty, but more will go to the polls because they have been emotionally moved to participate. It may be for reasons of supporting a particular candidate. Or it may be out of antagonism for another candidate. This is reality. And this is a time when voters must decide which side they are on: the side of corporate Christian feudalism; or the side of egalitarian secular democracy.

On behalf of egalitarian secular democrats in the U.S., here are some labels I believe our fascist Republican brethren have earned:

greedy
irresponsible
egotistical, egocentric, self-centered
prejudiced
childish, juvenile
parochial
primitive
gator-brained
paternalistic
feudal [mind-set, attitudes]
dogmatic
uninformed
naive
unthinking
unenlightened
"cut and spit" [they cut public taxes and spending, and spit on the citizens who need public help]
"cut and hoard" [they cut public taxes and spending, and hoard the nation's wealth]
"Antoinettes", e.g., "Congressional Antoinettes" [Paul Ryan] and "Conservative Antoinettes" [Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter]
blinded by their preconceptions

If I think of more, I'll add to the list....