Government for people as people rather than people as faithful subjects of the business class…

And now it is time for the Democrats to speak with their convention. The tone is government for the people rather than for big business that promises to let some of its (big business’ that is) revenue trickle down to the common folk, as in the benovolent king to his subjects.

Yes, it is rhetoric. But it is a different tone.

Democrats also speak of inclusion or promote it more. They promise to represent everyone from your common everyday white person of Anglo-Saxon descent to black Americans to Hispanics and so on. The Republicans give some lip service to that but there does not seem many takers for their call into their tent.

And to my way of thinking the Democrats have been more in favor of freedom of religion, not just rule by the Christian religious right, who think that they are the only religion. And as I always say, we need freedom from religion, for those who so desire.

Also, Mitt Romney on the Republican side says he respects women but the tone of the convention seemed to be they only meant respect for women’s rights in the mode of the 1950s. Even though I kind of like that — I essentially grew up with that — I know that things have changed. Women have become a major part of the workforce outside the home, like it or not. And along with that they have come to expect certain rights, such as the right to their own body. Go figure Republicans.

Also, even though I am not big on the so-called Gay lifestyle in my face, I know it is a fact of life and that some people are born that way. I may not support outright Gay marriage, but I support equal co-habitation rights that would essentially be marriage. I don’t think the government should be ruling personal lifestyles.

President Obama has not been able to bring back full employment or completely turn the economy around, but I would think there is a limit to what a president can do. He depends upon cooperation from a Republican-controlled congress for one thing and they certainly don’t seem to want to cooperate (they of course accuse him of not cooperating).

In addition I am not so sure a president has tremendous control over the economy. The reasons people invest and buy and sell in the free market go way beyond government policy, although certainly government can create the right atmosphere for economic growth, I suppose.

Even the Wall Street Journal, normally a Republican lap dog, claims Romney was too vague in his acceptance speech about what he proposes.

While I am not a big fan of Obama foreign policy and while I believe America has to maintain a position of the toughest kid on the block, I think that can be done without outright belligerence. We simply act when we need to without a lot of threats and chest pounding from the likes of the George W. Bush types and even clean cut never served in uniform Romney types. Obama did not serve either, but he does not come across as belligerent, just steadfast.

I’m not fan of illegal immigration, yet I realize the business community, to include agriculture, lures workers here to undercut wages. It is the height of hypocrisy to then go after those workers with the long arm of the law.

We either have to crack down on businesses, to include farmers, hiring illegals, or make accommodations, it is that simple.

What bothers me most about the Republican side is that the party has let itself be taken over by narrow-minded bigots, religious zealots, and simpletons with no world view and no tolerance for people who may have different customs or opinions.

I on the other hand don’t think we should abandon our historic democratic culture that was, yes, developed primarily by European people. But apparently others are interested in taking part.

Maybe the president has an advantage in this election just from being an incumbent, a known quantity, but he also may have to prove why he can do much better in the next four years than so far.

But Mitt Romney has not made much of a case yet either other than his vagueness about what amounts to the unproven theory of supply side economics.

I mean it is hardly a given that if business people are making money the people will be taken care of. Ever heard of the Great Depression? Corporate America is awash with cash now too, and most of the big banks are doing nicely, thank you.

Romney’s Bain capital has been said to be a prime shipper of jobs overseas. Not exactly an example of the high tide for business lifting all boats.

Yes, I know the Republicans have taken to touting small business, but they can do well also without lifting the lives of their employees — it varies widely. And while I am sure that many small business people are proud of the role they play in providing jobs, the goal of business is not to provide money for others but to provide money for the owners and the investors — that is just a fact of life of economics. So someone, some political party, still has to look out for the interests of workers.

And for some strange reason, Republicans act as if dollars and cents trump clean water and air every time. They would despoil their own nests in the name of profits, seems kind of shortsighted (not to say that environmental regulations cannot get out of hand).

If you’re still undecided, you have some deciding to do. If you’re a Democrat, maybe you should support the party.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: