Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Flipped past the public access channel last night, and there was some Kennedy offspring, giving a speech on how the eeeeeeeeeevil conservatives, ever pandering to the Corrupt Corporate Conglomerate (my phrase, like it?) are robbing from the poor and giving to the rich while destroying the environment -- pretty much how the Left frames conservatives in the world.

Well, this particular conservative counts himself as an environmentalist, but not a kum-ba-ya-singing, swaying counter-culture environmentalist. Any sensible human being wants a healthy and attractive environment. But I think we have to be reasonable about it. And I don't believe in robbing anybody and giving to anybody else -- this is why I'm a conservative.

I don't buy into the Leftist view that the rich are rich because they oppress the poor and take their money. Not that it doesn't happen. But by and large the rich are rich because somebody worked hard and took risks and it all payed off for them and, for some of them, their relatives.

Now I listened to a particular part of this Kennedy's speech in which he was trying to express the need for the Democratic Party to "take back" the monicre of "champions of the working class" from the Republicans -- who get their votes. And it struck me when he said something to the effect of "... and they get them to vote against their own economic interests" what is wrong with the Democratic Party (not that Zell Miller didn't hit the nail largely on the head last fall).

What they're basically saying about the poor (amongst themselves -- their favorite audience) is "They're too stupid to vote for us. They don't know what they want."

Yeah, that'll get me to vote for ya. Call me stupid. You're in, buddy!

It's because they believe that "the people" don't know what they want, but they (the Democrats) do. Just put them in power and they'll show you what you want, and if you don't they'll force it down your throat anyway. Remember -- Hitler was a Socialist. And Stalin.

At any rate, I don't know if its an actual plan or not, but basically it goes like this -- the kind of social engineering being advocated here is one which places a significant bit of the population in the position of being dependent on the government. This is good for parties that promote the social engineering -- because once you start letting a part of the population depend on the government, that part will continue to grow. The incentive to work (produce) drops, less gets produced -- and it is production of goods and services that makes the world go 'round, economically speaking. The people who are dependent on the government will vote to keep that structure in place (AARP, for instance) -- and in the long run, few are producing, the government has little to tax and can no longer support its dependent population, and it all collapses in a dusty implosion.

Conservatives understand this.

I suppose the Left counts on an endless supply of rich to plunder and re-distribute the wealth.

No comments: