Democracies’ Achilles Heel


Unfiltered By Daryl L. Hunter, Unfiltered 11-12-06

 
 

Today's partisan politics begs the question, who's side are they on anyway? Regardless of which party, the answer spoken in deeds, not words is always - the side of their party, and America is becoming the victim of their divisive ways.

To become a representative of the people a candidate must decide if his view of America's responsibility lies with liberal populism or conservative self-reliance.

A liberal’s nature supports government safety net programs and the role of big government’s as nanny state and exercises a general faith of government solutions to societal problems emphasizing the general welfare of the populace (Democrats and big government), When it comes to foreign affairs and war most liberals feel the need to appease and accommodate. Quite like the Roman Goddess of Love!

Conservative’s nature on the other hand believes that America’s safety net has become a hammock and government social programs have a fiduciary responsibility of success. Collective community success is through achievement, a belief that if you offer a hand up instead of an escalator they will have the strength to stand, emphasizing personal responsibility, local autonomy, and fiscal conservatism (Republicans and small government). When it comes to foreign affairs and war the conservative mind thinks if you project weakness, the weakness will be exploited, hence, a value of bravado, possibly like the Roman God of War.

Idealism is the driving force on both sides. They are both well meaning with opposite visions and polar opposite approaches of a better America.

Once a candidate has picked sides they must pander to the coalitions of their particular ideology to gain support and the money necessary to get elected. Pandering necessitates promises and promises always cost money, the money of our U.S. Treasury.

Liberals promise government social programs for the masses facilitating a secure, worry free, future, a position rooted in empathy. The opposite conservative vision is to grease the wheels of commerce, and get government out of the way, facilitating the entrepreneurial and independent spirit of our people which expedites commerce and job growth, a different approach which on its face may seem devoid of empathy until you analyze its harvest of societal rewards.

The liberal Democrat constituency mandates continual government intervention and implementation of insurance of the general welfare of the people, and their pandering representatives deliver the legislation to implement these social programs. Conservatives although against most social spending must agree to half measures of all social spending proposals to avoid being villainized as non-empathetic by the opposition. Conservatives need more than the business community for support and liberal, nanny state, social programs (free stuff) have some cross over appeal for non-analytical, values voters and blue-collar conservatives.

The result of this kind of compromise is, we always get a half measure of any social legislation despite how ill conceived, or the eventual cost of new bureaucratic bloat, the new social legislation likely will inflict.

There have been several democracies over millennia and their average length of existence is about 200 years. They always collapse due to the crippling exponential pressure on the treasury to deliver the promises made during ‘democracies’ pandering process.

There is a constant that we Americans should factor before we support new social spending. On average a social program’s actual cost is 400% more by its twentieth anniversary than the programs projected cost at inception, and they are never a bargain at the time of proposal and implementation. The cost of war and natural catastrophe, as expensive as they may be, have a finite beginning and end, social entitlement programs do not.

Democracies’ nature, ‘people voting for their self interest as they perceive it,’ seldom factors the real cost of a piece of legislation at the ballot box, their scope of reference, or interest is usually limited to their lifetime; A legislator factors only short-term gain for the next election cycle; this egocentric shortsightedness is a price ultimately paid by our progeny.

Daryl L. Hunter publishes The Upper Valley Free Press



Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

NEW WEST FEATURES                                                                 More>>

Advertisement

Comments

By mike, 11-12-06
By Daryl L. Hunter, 11-12-06
By Tom von Alten, 11-13-06
By Daryl L. Hunter, 11-16-06

Your Comment

Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email info@newwest.net to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest.Net.

You must be a registered user to submit comments, if you are not, register here for free.


Name

Email

Remember my name and email address.

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Advertisement