Name-Calling As Mature Political Discourse In The Real World

Elizabeth WarrenSenator Elizabeth Warren (The Left’s anti-Hillary woman whose claim to Indian ancestry remains suspect) was called a “Socialist” on a Fox News show tonight. Well, that was Fox News, right? You annoy a Lefty, you’re often a “racist;” annoying a Righty, you’re a “socialist.” Reflecting upon that level of political debate, it seems to us that we were maybe four years of age when it started seeming juvenile. But then we learned math, English, reading and history in grammar schools that did not promote or graduate us unless we had in fact, learned. We grew up in other words, in an alien world. And while then we were pretty green, we are much less so now …

La Warren may be a socialist; we hardly know; it seems to us that most politicians are socialists, these days. When they are speaking anyway. When they are voting on legislation, not so much. When they are negotiating with political donors or other beneficiaries, affecting No. 1, not at all. But it strikes us that it’s all a scam.

Socialist, Communist, Progressive, Conservative, Democrat, Republican. What is really the difference? Let’s compare:

1. They all think that they with their friends should be in charge; you should do as they require.

2. They all want as much of your money as they can get. And these days when they can’t get that, they spend it anyway, call it “National Debt” and expect you to pay it later. With interest. Still no difference between them.

3. They all expect to control your life for you by law. Mrs. Obama is in charge of your kids lunch.

4. They all make government larger and more powerful. (Find me any who’ve actually shrunk government significantly).

5. Buying election to high office these days takes millions; they all want to satisfy the requirements of their donors, who want advantages for themselves.

6. They all engage in wars. (Especially when they criticized an election opponent for that.)

Left and Right use different rhetoric; they reward some common and some different ‘friends.’ But they all do much the same things in office. Who they do it to may shift.

So what matters isn’t whether a candidate is a ‘socialist’ or a ‘conservative’ (what is it that they would conserve?) What maters is only how large they want their government and what power do they want it to have. Most of the rest amounts just to name-calling. Unfortunately, those things that we really should know, are the last ones that either candidates or media generally want us to know. And too many of us don’t really seem to care …

And we suspect that no one, even Democrats, takes Liz Warren seriously. The media won’t say that, either.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Elections, Government, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Name-Calling As Mature Political Discourse In The Real World

  1. Brittius says:

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s