Let's see how much fun I can have with this comment I got today on my post called "So long, Delmarva Democrats". I'll glorify the one "Final Frontier" made, he (or she) seems to be a fairly regular Delmarva blog commenter. And yes it was all one paragraph, sort of like the parodies Duvafiles does of another local blogger. It's placed here just like the original, spelling errors and all:
I think the Republic Party is really the one that has abandoned the good ol’ boy white males, they just don’t know it yet. So where are those blue collar white males going to work under the Republics? They are selling your jobs to India and Mexico, my friends. And when you do lose your job, God help you if a Republic is in charge, ’cause you are going to lose your healthcare. Tax and spend Democrats? Well, how about the spend and spend Republics? Sure, the Republics have cut taxes, but not for the NASCAR dads. They are cut for the owners of the teams. When are you guys going to take notice that the Republics do NOT have your interest at heart, they just put on a Southern drawl, wave a flag, and hope you don’t notice what their policies are really doing–crushing the middle class, allowing education to be pitiful (especially in areas that are bastions for the Republic party), and setting up boogeymen to make you freak out (look out, here comes a roving band of gays for our children)! I’m not saying the Democratic Party is perfect, and I realize there are hypocrites there, but come on, people. Look at their actual policies, not just the cool tv commercials and the slogans. The Republics have done a masterful job convincing poor and middle class white men that they are the party that represents them through propaganda that says the democrats will get rid of the Second Amendment, and other nonsense. Think about it it–it is REALLY hard to amend the Constitution, it ain’t gonna happen. You may not like the Democrats, but look beyond the rhetoric and ask whether the Republics truly are looking out for you in important areas such as the economy, health care, and education.
Where to start?
First of all, while I'm going on memory I believe the U.S. is still a net insourcer of jobs - in other words, foreign companies employing American workers outweigh American companies outsourcing jobs. (A quick glance at Wikipedia appears to back me up.) Just ask those NASCAR dads who are building Toyotas in several Southern and Midwestern states, along with California. Toyota is just one company who felt American workers would do a quality job building their vehicles for the American market. Further, part of the reason the companies who outsource do so is the excessive regulation, unfair taxation, and poorly thought-out trade rules those on the Democrat side tend to favor (along with a few misguided protectionist Republicans.)
Now to health care. Far from wishing the working class to lose their health care, principled Republicans are trying to make it more affordable by encouraging health savings accounts that combine with high-deductable health insurance plans intended to cover catastrophic events. Compare that to HillaryCare, where everyone will have to have health insurance regardless of risk. See just how fast that drives good health insurers out of the marketplace.
(A good resource on the health care issue as well as the educational one I'll discuss below is the Maryland Public Policy Institute.)
I will agree with part of FF's comment about "spend and spend" Republicans, which is some of the reason the base stayed home in 2006 and moderate voters decided to give the Democrats (who campaigned on earmark reform) a chance. Of course once in power suddenly earmark reform just wasn't as important to the Democrats. They will probably send our first $3 trillion budget to President Bush, rushing it through at the last minute to hide all the goodies they want like a renewal and expansion of the SCHIP program.
But FF loses me on the argument about NASCAR team owners getting all of the tax breaks. FF uses the old class envy argument about "tax cuts for the rich" while forgetting that the higher-bracket taxpayers foot most of the bill so any across-the-board cut will benefit them more in real dollars (but not necessarily propotionately). Besides, who do higher income taxes hurt the most? Small businessmen. The truly wealthy who live off their trust funds (like Ted Kennedy) have very little real income and don't mind high rates on that pittance.
Now, let's talk about education. Where are America's truly pitiful schools? In urban areas. And what party tends to run those urban areas and their school districts? Why, it's the Democrats of course. But the Democrats are the party who stands in the way of allowing parents to have more choice in where they send their child to school so that maybe a working-class family could send their child to a better school.
While FF notes regarding the Second Amendment that it's hard to amend the Constitution so it "ain't gonna happen", there's nothing said about the judges who read things into the Constitution which aren't there (like a "right to privacy") and ignore things plainly stated ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") Which party tends to appoint those judges? You guessed it.
I suppose the crux of this whole disagreement comes down to one definition - the meaning of "looking out for you" as FF puts it. Apparently FF takes it to mean that the government should make as many of your life decisions as possible - how much of your money you get to keep, which doctor you should go to and when you'll be allowed to get the treatment you need, and how much parenting you should do because little Johnny and Sally will be under their watch from the age of three all the way through college if Hillary and the Democrats get their way, making sure to teach them that values and morals are whatever the schools feel those values and morals should be.
I happen to think that people should be allowed to look out for themselves. That's not to say that we shouldn't be charitable to those in need, far from it. I put my trust in the people. They know how best to spend their own money so the government needs to have the attitude that it's the people's money first, not confiscate it all and give them a small portion back in the spring. The common man is prudent enough to shop for an employer who provides health insurance and would probably prefer that the government not interfere with the health care market through overly burdensome federal regulations on care and insurers.
Above all, the people want to look out for the next generation. They don't need educators telling them how to raise their children and they strive to give their children the best in education. Allowing money currently distributed willy-nilly to public schools to instead follow the child regardless of chosen educational venue would give them a wonderful opportunity to be parents and direct their child's upbringing in the manner they see fit.
The Republican Party is far from perfect. At times, they fall prey to the same disease that Democrats have suffered from for years, thinking problems are only solved by government. But while FF seems to place trust in government to look out for people, I trust the people can do wonderful things for themselves; even moreso when government steps out of their way.