REPUBLICAN FANTASY WORLD

There is a disconnect—politics in the real world seems to be different from politics in the minds of certain people. For example, consider the politics of Rand Paul or libertarians in general. They want to live in a world without government telling them what to do. This fantasyland is so far from reality it borders on the insane. An often cited example was when Paul expressed the idea that if a person owns a lunch counter he or she has the right to decide who can and who cannot eat there. Presumably, this philosophy extends to all businesses, a pharmacists, a barber, a grocery store, everything; if you do not believe this tell where it stops. Because, as I already pointed out, they hate government so this obviously extends to government; government is where we get our laws; all of them. They do not want the government telling them they must do this or that or they cannot do this or that.

Really, is this even biologically rational? We did not evolve as individuals. We have social structure and human refinement of that society we call culture. I invoke the idea of a person living in New York City or any city who wants to live like a hermit. Can he or she do it? Can he own and drive cars, buy groceries, work for someone, start their own business, or live in the protective environment of a tribal unit as they did 150,000 years ago. “Individual” cannot survive without codified rules of cooperation. Even animals need group structure such as herds, flocks, and packs to survive, even though they are not written, they are agreed upon. People need group structure to survive—rules to live by—period.

Am I missing something? Am I irrational? How is it that thousands upon thousand of people in Kentucky voted him into Senate to represent them, presumably because they agree with his philosophy and are hoping he will be able to change the nation into some fantasyland?

Then I leave the Libertarians and look at the Republican Party as they project themselves to the people. We can live with what they see as a difference between the Republican philosophy and libertarians, which really is only as a matter of degree. Recently, the Tea party has greatly enlarged and turned this group in to a wing of the Republican Party that approaches the libertarian camp. Republicans in general seem to accept the idea they have to have government: however, they want the government to be as small as they can possible make it; they call themselves small government conservatives.

Most people accept the idea that we want the government to do for us what we cannot do for our selves; such as the acceptable socialist project, which is to protect the nation. The proviso is that it is OK for the government to be involved in major project too expensive for individuals to finance, such as build highways, national railroads major projects, dig cannels and build huge damns but only if they are run them as free enterprises. Of course, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors involved—the government should not and cannot make money from such things as the Hoover damn; this is socialism. When it come to railroads, individual railroad companies controlled the project; thus, a government project turned into free enterprises with individual profit motives, which turned out badly and resulted in the infamous the trusts that Roosevelt made his reputation on in the early years of the 20^th century.

Conservatives abandon their need for separation of government and business and support this shift from socialism to free enterprise for huge projects, while the idea that “the government should do for us what we cannot do for ourselves” has been completely abandoned by some most agree that there are things the government should do for the people. The current health care debate is interesting in that regard; free enterprise (insurance companies) interfaces with government. Everyone knows that free enterprise did not work in health care; therefore, we see Republican grudging cooperation in the Affordable Health Care Act. However, they have built such an intense “hate the government” and “hate Obama campaign”, that it is interfering with their willingness to cooperate with what we all know we need, not just liberals. They have done the same thing with immigration and education; they are working in a fantasy world against their own interest and they know it.

However, where the fantasy becomes blatant is in welfare; welfare should be a matter of individual and not government giving. This is a softening the rhetoric of Ayn Rand, and such modern notables as Congressmen Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor as “haves” and “have nots”. Only producers matter; some people, no matter why, just do not matter; if they cannot support themselves they can die or live, it just doesn’t matter. With that as a base, Republicans philosophy makes no sense to me; they seem to believe some people just do not count but at the same time claim to be compassionate. These feelings are not hidden; it is their public persona. It seems illogical to me that I can talk to a Republican and he or she will deny people food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc and in the same breath claim to be compassionate.

As with the Rand Paul libertarianism, free enterprise overlapping with government, and the inconsistencies in logic between their political beliefs and their humanity suggest something is wrong with their sense of reality. As I said, it is as if they are living a fantasy world. I anticipate my critics will jump at this and say that if this fantasy world exists, it exist for both Democrats and Republicans. If that is the case, then give me an example of a Democratic fantasy similar to the hermit in a big city, huge government projects run as free enterprise, or the disparity between the “haves” and “have nots” and compassion.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated