As given by Peggy Noonan:
Democrats in the end speak most of, and seem to hold the most sympathy for, the beset-upon single mother without medical coverage for her children, and the soldier back from the war who needs more help with post-traumatic stress disorder. They express the most sympathy for the needy, the yearning, the marginalized and unwell. For those, in short, who need more help from the government, meaning from the government’s treasury, meaning the money got from taxpayers.
Who happen, also, to be a generally beset-upon group.
Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon mother and the soldier and the kids. They express little sympathy for the middle-aged woman who owns a small dry cleaner and employs six people and is, actually, day to day, stressed and depressed from the burden of state, local and federal taxes, and regulations, and lawsuits, and meetings with the accountant, and complaints as to insufficient or incorrect efforts to meet guidelines regarding various employee/employer rules and regulations. At Republican conventions they express sympathy for this woman, as they do for those who are entrepreneurial, who start businesses and create jobs and build things. Republicans have, that is, sympathy for taxpayers. But they don’t dwell all that much, or show much expressed sympathy for, the sick mother with the uninsured kids, and the soldier with the shot nerves.
Neither party ever gets it quite right, the balance between the taxed and the needy, the suffering of one sort and the suffering of another. You might say that in this both parties are equally cold and equally warm, only to two different classes of citizens.
The full article can be found here.
Peggy Noonan is correct insofar as she goes, but she notably leaves out one class of Americans - the super wealthy.
There is a very distinct difference between how the parties treat the wealthiest class of Americans - Democrats want to tax them more, and Republicans want to tax them less. And, remember, these folks are not middle-aged women who own small dry cleaners, they are beer heiresses who own eight homes. Republicans want them to pay less taxes, Democrats don’t. Big difference.
I think Peggy is right in that Democrats speak one way or show little sympathy in another way, but in the end, they pretty much do what Republicans do. They have anti-war rhetoric, but in the end they kind of go along with it. They talk about privacy and individual liberties (which used to be more of a Republican theme) but in the end Barack Obama supports telecom immunity legislation. They talk about how big business takes advantage of the little guy. That’s often true, but not in the way they think. It’s not that Wal-Mart doesn’t offer health care. That’s just supply and demand. The real problem is that companies like Wal-Mart pay lobbyist lots of money to pass legislation that regulates the industry they are involved in. This limits competition and results in the little guy having fewer choices, which means more expensive goods and services.
So the Republicans legislate on behalf of their lobbyists and Democrats do the same. Meanwhile Republicans talk about how we shouldn’t regulate so we can have more competition and this plays well for the liberterian minded. Democrats talk about how we should regulate to help out the little guy. In the end they pretty much all do the same thing, all the while offering the appearance that we have diversity.
I remember seeing a cartoon when I was a kid back in the 80’s showing a Soviet election of 9 candidates, and they were all clones. I thought it was a good point. Maybe that applies more to us today.
There’s a lot of truth in what you say, Jon.
Jon, you would love Bryan Caplan, check out his latest post here.
ELECTION 2008
Obama slips on TV: ‘My Muslim faith’
Presidential candidate drops line in interview discussing his belief
——————————————————————————–
Posted: September 07, 2008
3:42 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Slip of the tongue or momentary confusion? In a television interview today discussing his religion, Sen. Barack Obama stated, “My Muslim faith.”
Obama, speaking to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week,” was talking about what he described as “smears” that were claiming he was a Muslim when he maintains he is a practicing Christian.
“Let’s not play games,” Obama stated. “What I was suggesting – you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come.”
Stephanopoulos immediately interrupted Obama, stating, “Christian faith.”
“My Christian faith,” Obama quickly said. “Well, what I’m saying is that he (McCain) hasn’t suggested that I’m a Muslim. And I think that his campaign’s upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I’m not who I say I am when it comes to my faith – something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.”
This clarification was long coming, but finally the truth has slipped out of Obamas mouth. He can hide it no longer and now it is easy to understand where so much of campaign funding came from. It is said the truth will set you free and now Obama is free to return to Chicago so he can organize some more communities and staple some more flyers to telephone poles.
This is a stupid article…it was clear from the context that it was a slip, and an easy one to make given the context.
A slip from his subconsious beliefs that everyone is trying to ignore for the sake of their Golden Boy, Barak.
There’s a reason they call it “World Nuts Daily”.
Yes, that is excellent, HP. Here’s another good one. I regard it as mis-titled. It says “Why Liberterians Should Vote for Obama” but for me it really is an article about why liberterians should not vote Republican.
Hahaha…Using my websites against me huh Jon! Nice work! I saw that article and frankly, this is the only time I have ever really considered voting Democrat…there is soo much to like in Obama. Though I think he will be a more liberal president than McCain, he seems much more open to new ideas and interested in economics in general - two things that make a great economic president.
But overall I still think McCain is the better choice…by a thin margin. Something like 55 to 45…I plan to do a post on why later. Hopefully you can chime in.
You know I will chime in.
I may actually end up agreeing with you. I could see McCain as slightly better. Obama is no less of a war monger, perhaps a little more of a socialist, and though McCain is a flip flopper on abortion he’d probably work out just slightly better for the pro-life cause. My thinking though is if we just go out and vote for this rino we send a clear message to Republicans. We don’t care how much you screw us over and lie to us or how crappy the nominee is. So long as you’ve got an R next to your name we’ll vote for you. If I could tip the scales for Obama by failing to vote for a Republican for the first time in my life I’d do it. Obama is worse, but it would force the Republicans to really try and earn my vote by really standing for the things they pretend to care about.
Probably a lot of Democrats feel the same way. They vote in all these Democrats on ‘06 to end the war and nothing changes.