So, Republican Or Democrat?

After the conventions, after the speeches, perhaps a general overview might be useful.

Beyond The Cadence And Emotion

Please, look beyond the cadence and emotion, look underneath the rousing jargon; just moments after President Obama faulted Republicans for wanting to go back to "the same prescription they've had for the last thirty years", and then declaring "We're not going back, we're going forward", he announced that his solution "will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued" . . . that's going back 80 years!?

And it's going back to policies that have never worked. This common notion that liberals are all about boldly moving forward and conservatives are all about fearfully wanting to return to the past is simply not the factual matter of the case - they both subscribe to economic policies that have been around for a long time, the liberals are not presenting anything new and certainly not presenting something newer than what the conservatives favor.

Supply-side Economics was developed in the 1970s as a response to Keynesian Economics . . . Keynesian Economics had been around since The Great Depression, it's the course FDR followed that liberals assert ended The Great Depression and conservatives advance made The Great Depression last 10 years longer than it needed to (actually making it "The Great" rather than just a rescission/depression). By the 1970s the liberal's commitment to Keynesian Economics required the U.S. to come-up with a new economic term, 'stagflation' - the conservative alternative was dubbed "Supply-side Economics" . . . it was essentially government stepping back and trusting the free market system to work.


Nobody Is Being Evil, It's Simply Two Different Ideas

My point here is, if the liberals want to make the choice here about who's going back to old failed policies, they are going much farther back and their policies have been demonstrated as failed. The real issue here though is this; no one is mean and bad and stupid, no one party is interested to help others while the other party doesn't care, it's simply not about who's good & smart and who's bad & stupid - the real issue is what will actually work and help the most people.

The liberal's basic idea is that if the government stimulates the economy with tons of tax money all that tax money will promote spending and investing, etc, and the economy will grow - the conservative's basic idea is that if you don't hinder business & industry growth with high taxes and absurd regulations business & industry will naturally grow (hiring more people, producing more products, etc) and all that earned income money will promote spending and investing, etc, and the economy will grow . . . nobody is being evil, it's simply two different ideas.


The Evidence Is Pretty Observable

The liberals have to make the issue about who is more morally upright, who cares more, who is for the average guy, etc, etc, because their actually policy of government stimulus has never worked anywhere any time. The idea of central planners simply is contrary to the economic system of free people. It's the conservative idea of the free market adjusting itself and rising everyone upward that built this country prior to FDR, and it's behind the economic boom under JFK, Reagan, and Clinton's 2nd term (under the oversight of Gingrich's Republican take over of Congress).

I think the evidence is pretty observable that big government fiddling in the marketplace introduces hardships for the middle and lower classes and that the free market system has invented the middle class and raised more people out of poverty than can be counted - but, either way, whatever you think is the better course, it's just a different understanding of economics, no one is being mean, it's not about good guys and bad guys . . . and that the liberals so consistently want to frame it as such, should cause us to wonder about the measurable functionality of their actual plan.


(I'm not a Ron Paul guy, I just thought it both a bit humorous photo under the circumstances, but more so, a bit troubling - the two party system that's become so assumed to be the way things have to be, the system George Washington warned us against, might just be the centerpiece of our difficulties . . . when our choice is between only two professional politicians propped-up by rival political parties, how can we ever expect to find an honest citizen servant of the people?)

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 4 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

. . . well, don't run off, I may need all the help I can get.


carol7777 profile image

carol7777 4 years ago from Arizona

I think you got your point across excellently. However, regardless something has to be done about what is currently going on. The debt..is a major issue and seems to be skirted...I am more confused than ever..but hope it all works out. thanks and voted UP


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

"This common notion that liberals are all about boldly moving forward and conservatives are all about fearfully wanting to return to the past is simply not the factual matter of the case" - Check out the definition of the word "conservative":

"con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/

Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

Noun: A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics."

"The liberal's basic idea is that if the government stimulates the economy with tons of tax money all that tax money will promote spending and investing, etc, and the economy will grow - the conservative's basic idea is that if you don't hinder business & industry growth with high taxes and absurd regulations business & industry will naturally grow (hiring more people, producing more products, etc) and all that earned income money will promote spending and investing, etc, and the economy will grow" - You stated quite clearly the position of both parties here.

To put things into perspective here, I must say that I think Obama is as much of a puppet for lobbyists and interest groups, just as much as Mitt Romney is. Both will take the United States further into decay.

Yet, I must admit that the Democrats idea sounds a little more logical. If people are put to work in terms of building roads, bridges, rail-roads and so on then, people are taken from unemployment to employment.

The conservative argument is that there is no money. Well, I would argue that there is lots of money around. I think in 2010 roughly 683.7 billion dollars were spent on the Military Industrial System. How about the United States stops invading countries in order to level them so that it has nation building to do afterwards?

So, take the money invested in killing people and start building infrastructure at home. That will create jobs, give people money, which in turn people will use at grocery stores, paying rent/mortgage, etc.

The conservative approach to letting the market decide the course of action is laughable. As most financial gurus are explaining nowadays, big corporations and businesses are sitting on capital and not investing. The banks have been bailed-out and they are not lending ... The haves are not spending and the have-nots are going poorer and poorer by the day as there is hardly any opportunity for them.

I personally do not care who wins the election. Both parties are drowning in lobbyists money and they do not represent the common man. I hear empty promises and the winds of discontent are getting stronger.

Time will solve everything. Thank You for the read - interesting.

All the best!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 4 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Thanks for the comment, and the thought, Carol.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 4 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Mr. Happy ~ the idea of the dictionary definition of terms comes-up quite a bit, but I think is invalid. We all use language in an everyday manner, words mean things and we use them accordingly. But common words that we all use can be adopted by a particular discipline or enterprise and become a term with specific meaning pertinent to that discipline or enterprise; when lawyers talk about a 'brief' they are not speaking of a measurement of duration they are talking about a legal document filed with the court, when baseball players use the word 'error' they're not simply meaning a mistake but are referring to particular play statistically recorded, etc.

In political philosophy the everyday common words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have come to be used as specified terms, they don't necessarily carry the dictionary definition of what it means to be liberal or conservative as we commonly use those words outside of politics. I think the reason those particular words became attached to these two competing political ideas has to do with one group (the 'liberals') preferring to 'interpret' The Constitution in a liberal manner, making our contemporary disposition inform it's meaning, being very liberal or lenient with the document's original intent - whereas the other group (the 'conservatives') preferred to understand The Constitution in a conservative manner, informing our contemporary disposition in accord with it's meaning, being very conservative or circumspect regarding the document's original intent.

So, I don't think that political liberals are necessarily open-minded, generous, and forward-thinking, or even more so than conservatives - and I don't think that politically conservative people are necessarily rigid, selfish, and fearful of change . . . those dictionary definitions of the common usage of the words just isn't concordant with the way we've come to use these technical terms.

As to a general overview of the two competing economic ideas; I don't think conservatives think there is no money around - I think they think that some businesses have lots of capitol, but are cautious to spend it in re-investing, up-grading, expanding, etc, their business because of the uncertain economic climate (are consumers going to be buying) and the burden government places on them.

Both ideas are essentially top-down economic plans . . . either top-down from business or top-down from government. The trouble, it seems to me, with government top-down economics (stimulus packages, bailouts, government work projects, etc) is that we are inserting, not just a middle-man, but a gigantic bureaucratic middle-man in-between to the two authentic components of an economy - the supplier and the consumer. All that 'fake' money pumped into the economy will certainly have some initial effect, but real commerce isn't taking place and it's all shifting around money that's already there (taking some of your paycheck and giving it to a farmer not to grow corn or to a solar panel factory that's not making a product there are sufficient customers for).

Business top-down economics cuts-out the gigantic bureaucratic middle-man, leaves all of us with more of our earned income, and let's the marketplace (with some reasonable regulations) function . . . companies make things that people will actually buy and we all buy stuff we actually want, and it all keeps growing. Capitalism is the economic system of free people and it has raised more people out of poverty than any government assistance program.

And Mr. Happy, the trick to all this is, both these systems have been around for generations . . . the first settlers in America experimented with both plans, the more socialist central planning settlement ended in starvation and ruin while the capitalist settlement thrived and became the course this nation adopted. The government top-down plan has been tried all over and it has never produced a working class or contented people, it's currently putting Europe through turmoil. When China instituted even partial capitalism in the late 70s millions rose from poverty and a middle class began to appear.

As to "Both parties are drowning in lobbyists money and they do not represent the common man" I couldn't agree more. George Washington cautioned us not to let our republic become run by a two party system.

I do count the conservative philosophy on these matters more valid, but my whole point here you portray very honorably - there is not a good & smart side here and a bad and dumb side, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to consider these ideas as friends genuinely seeking the best solutions. The assumption the business is evil and out to ruin you and government is virtuous and wanting to help you (?!), and that liberals are kind and care while conservatives are mean and don't care, etc, is a ludicrous posture and a great hindrance to actually solving problems and helping people.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and well presented comments.


bravewarrior profile image

bravewarrior 4 years ago from Central Florida

Mickey, it's only because I love you that I read this. I absolutely HATE politics! We're lied to consistently and are bitten in the ass by those who promise to make life better.

Thanks to Nobama, the middle class has been eradicated. My income says I'm middle class, but my ability to pay my debts has reduced me to poverty level. Believe you me, my creditors do not understand, nor do they want to hear that I FLAT OUT DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!

I don't appreciate having my livlihood being messed with by those who have never been in my position. Was I given a choice? No!! Not even when I had the choice!


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

To begin with, I want to thank You for the conversation - I appreciate it. Your comment provided lots of food for thought.

"All that 'fake' money pumped into the economy will certainly have some initial effect" - Between other things, printing money creates inflation and I think we are beginning to see that. The United States dollar lost some of its purchasing power over the course of the last few years.

"Business top-down economics cuts-out the gigantic bureaucratic middle-man, leaves all of us with more of our earned income, and let's the marketplace (with some reasonable regulations) function . . ." - I am happy You mentioned "some reasonable regulation" because many people fail to recognize that true capitalism has never been put in practice just as true communism has also never been put in practice.

True capitalism would require no regulations and no subsidies (and the United States government gives-off a lot of subsidies to many industries), while a true communist system does not involve dictators and dictatorships (yet, every time communism was supposed to be put to practice, dictators highjacked the system).

"we all buy stuff we actually want" - the problem is sometimes people do not act responsibly. Most people want cheap, cheap stuff and this has resulted in manufacturing jobs flying off to South-east Asia, where little children can be employed for eight cents an hour. In this way people in North America can buy cheap Nike shoes at Wallmart. In the end, this ends up hurting ourselves (never mind about the children who are exposed to child slavery in South-east Asia). So, for some reason I am inclined to say that we need serious regulations in place ...

"When China instituted even partial capitalism in the late 70s millions rose from poverty and a middle class began to appear." - This is becoming a point of interest for many financial experts because as we can see now, the western world and its capitalist societies are not doing so great, while China's partial capitalism is flourishing. Therefore, perhaps partial capitalism is something for everyone to look at. It does seem a more effective system, at least in terms of economic growth.

"there is no reason we shouldn't be able to consider these ideas as friends genuinely seeking the best solutions" - I love this attitude! We should certainly try to talk to each other, listen to each others' ideas and concerns ... I mean ... I am of the opinion that since there is One Planet and One People, we should work together, in Unity.

Thank You again for the discussion.

All the best!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 4 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Mr. Happy ~ I count you a great encouragement. When we devolve to party politics and assume what the other guy thinks and is going to say is not as smart or not as caring as our own view, then we withdraw from honest discussion and a genuine consideration of idea and resort to mere name-calling. The extremist's argument is nearly always to demonize any who see things differently - they can't reasonably advance the soundness of their own unreasonable extremism so they are left with attacking their opponent's character and misrepresenting his views.

When I bump into someone like yourself, willing (and able) to consider ideas free of assumptions and in a friendly manner, for me, that's more a delight than to bump into folks who agree with everything I say. Thanks.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working