Republicans have this idea that if you take away most everything that government provides to it's citizens in the form of social programs then you are actually helping the poor and needy. It does seems to be the opposite of reality. But they think that if you quit "enabling" folks who have little, it will spur them to provide for themselves as a last alternative. Republicans think that there are plenty of opportunities out there for folks to achieve success but they need the incentive of desperation to move them to act. That's seems to be their thinking although I have heard none of them explicitly say so to this point. The problem arises with their philosophy in that most if not all have already tried to be successful with what little they have had and were faced with the stark reality of being crushed by unfair market forces and a greedy psychology of survival of the fittest. The fact that privilege and advantage are hallmarks of the wealthy also makes being honestly successful difficult if not impossible for most everyone who starts out at an economic disadvantage. Republicans also seem to be fine with a winnowing of our population through survival of the fittest calculations. Since they see little to no role for social programs, most who are not able to compete for a livable wage are left to fend for themselves not much different than becoming scavengers for those who can make it. Democrats on the other hand have a different vision. We see that a foundation of social programs to help all come out of poverty and into opportunity as the beginning. Education from the beginning of life to the creation of jobs for everyone who would and could be employed. We Democrats, liberal/progressives, understand that the weakest among us is where our attention needs to be in order to strengthen the whole of us. We are in existence together, not as enemies or competitors, but as family and partners in making our societies more humane.
No comments:
Post a Comment