Monday, November 2, 2015


After the recent chaotic debate, the Republican candidates have met to decide how they want the debates structured. I cannot know for sure, but suspect each candidate wanted to meet to demand that they have said in making that decision. Again, I cannot know for sure but can almost guarantee each individual has a different idea that will favor themselves and will not want to compromise on what would be the proper debate format. The argument seems to relate to a fundamental trait in Republican philosophy; therefore, what makes sense is that what we expect is that they will meet and will not be able to decide what a proper debate format would be. It will be chaos. Classically, the public knows Republicans are reluctant to compromise with Democrats, which is why we have such dysfunction in Washington with a Democratic President and a Republican controlled Congress. The old trope applies, “it is their way or the highway”; therefore, the only way to have a functional government is to have only Republicans in government. Another obvious Republican trait is that they, as individuals and as a party, invariably say the exact opposite of what they believe. Just think of how many times you have heard a Republican candidate say they will work across the aisle or that they were successful as a Red governor in a blue state or something similar and then compare this to what is happening in Washington. How may time have you heard them say the government is too intrusive in their everyday lives. The proper interpretation of this is that someone else, not them, are making a decision they think they should make, which is most obvious when they talk about in things such as compassionate conservatism. Republicans are not heartless individuals, they have great compassion, yet they as a Congress cut food stamps that feed poor children and want to abolish old age poverty yet cut social security, for just two of many, many examples. The only way this makes sense to anyone is if you look at these things from their individualistic point of view. They seem quick to say people of old age should have a living income but they, and not the government, have to be the one to decide if this person or that person deserves it or not. No child should starve, but they as individuals have to be the ones, not the government, to decide which child gets food stamps. Of course, political operative buried all of this in rhetoric such as we cut food stamps because they want to stop liberals from cheating, etc. One of the big blurbs in the personal liberty sphere is that the government takes their hard-earned money; usually they say steal, and give it away to lazy people, which is how they describe liberal and all poor people. It is their money and “they” want to do with it as “they”, please. Everyone but Republicans seems to know how ridiculous this is in a country of three hundred and thirty million people. What we see in this “debate” over the “debate” format are Republicans fighting each other about the way Republican-controlled broadcast companies formatted their “debates”. I cannot wait to see what solution they will decide on short of having no debates. If they decide, it is sure to be a miracle with 15 non-compromising Republicans agreeing to disagree, not on the issues but on making sure, each one will be the leader in deciding what fair treatment of their individual rights is. For a starter, if I were a reporter, I would ask them as they come out of their private meetings, who led the discussion? Then I would ask then how would that be any different from what would happen with only Republicans were in Washington. URL: Comments Invited and not moderated

No comments:

Post a Comment