|
When a liberal politician votes for something, s/he is not doing so to serve a small portion of his constituency, the ones who voted for him/her. If s/he votes for clean air and water, for example, it's because that clean air and water will benefit everyone--including those who voted for the "other guy."
If the vote is for public safety, the liberal votes for it because public safety is good for everyone. If it's for economic justice, it's because it harms no one and helps many. If a liberal votes for peace, it's because the liberal understands that fighting should be the last resort, not the first option. If a liberal votes for universal, single-payer health care reform, it's because the liberal understands that the only ones coming out ahead in this current system are the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and it's about time that someone looked out for the people.
When conservatives (Republican or "Blue Dog" Democrat) vote against such things, they are not voting against clean water or air so much as they're voting against impeding the profitability of an agency that might be harmed financially by such regulation. Now it may be argued that profitability impacts jobs, but it seems a strange bargain to sacrifice health for employment. Sick people aren't particularly productive.
When conservatives threaten to vote against single-payer health care, it's not because they believe that it would be worse for the people for everyone to have equal access to health care, but because they think it would be bad for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. No one is arguing that people in places like Britain, France, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, etc... aren't healthy. So what's their real objection? It's not that it's "socialized" medicine, since they know full well that no one is talking about nationalizing the doctors or hospitals. It's not about the expense, since even a little research would show that single-payer is the most cost-effective option available.
The fact is that conservatives serve narrow special interests before the general public nearly every time. They argue that, since they were elected by "conservatives," they owe it to them to vote a certain way. Even if it's wrong. Even if it's harmful.
Liberals serve all of us, "conservatives" serve as few of us as possible. "Conservatives" serve those who believe the same way they do. Conservatives represent selfishness at its very core, and, in the process, harm many of the same people they would claim to represent. Because the one thing we should all see by now is that the "conservative" economic ideology is as morally bankrupt as it is fiscally bankrupt. Supply-side economics IS "voodoo economics."
The only ones foolish to pretend that it hasn't been totally discredited are the "conservative," pundits and politicians--people who serve themselves and those as similar to themselves as they can possibly manage and are therefore about as useful and trustworthy a source of information as Enron Executives around the turn of the last century. Which is to say, not at all.
You, my dear Conservative Senators and Representatives, were elected to serve the United States and the people of the United States, and defend its Constitution. We respectfully suggest you start doing so by turning your backs on the singular, exclusionary policies of conservatism past and instead embrace the idea that to serve America, one must serve Americans. All Americans, not just the ones who happen to look, dress, or think like you do.
And then, my dear, we may have something to talk about.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
