Monday, December 16, 2013
Labels can be, and often are, pejorative. One of those words is radical.
Oddly, in the news media, that pejorative term is used only for Republicans. Tea Party advocates, for example, are routinely referred to as radical.
Even more odd is that the current definition of a radical is “advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party.”
Advocating for thorough or complete political or social reform sounds more like class warriors than Republicans. So why they are always called progressives instead of radicals?
Progressives are defined as a group, person, or idea favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
So, according to the press, Tea Partiers who advocate a smaller government that stays out of our bed rooms and claim that we are “TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY” are radical. Class warriors, however, who want an ever growing socialist government involved in every aspect of our lives for which we are not paying a fair share of taxes are progressive. What could be more incongruous?
Now that the press has identified the philosophies of the two major political parties with power in the nation’s capitol, what can be expected if one of the two is in total control?
A radical government would strive to return to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. That would mean a smaller federal government with most of the rule making returned to the state and local governments.
There would be no more federal involvement in things like local school curriculums and ratings.
Senators and Representatives would be expected to spend more time in their home states and districts than in Washington, D.C. While back home, they would get first hand experience of living under the rules, regulations, and laws they impose on others. Just as important, while living with their constituents, they would get real experience in knowing what the people they represent need, want, and desire.
The most important aspect of a radical government is that it would operate under a balanced budget like the one required under the Texas Constitution. That balance would be maintained by controlling the spending side of the ledger instead of saying, “Hey!, let’s buy that. We can pay for it by raising taxes on those yokels back home who are not paying their fair share of taxes.”
A progressive government sounds so much better than one of those harsh radical things. Just look what you get under so called progressive rulers.
Although the problems of socialism are apparent throughout the world, progressives want to get to that heavenly state as quickly as possible.
The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, is the current and best example of that thinking. Progressives think that their henchmen, better known as bureaucrats, know best what kind of medical insurance you need and direct you to buy it. If you cannot pay for it, the bureaucrats will pay for it with taxes taken out of the pockets of those workers who are not paying their fair share.
They will also use those free flowing tax dollars to pay unwed mothers to have more children so they can receive more federal largess. Those poor unemployed people also need continuing help. The progressives will keep extending the unemployment payment deadlines as long as necessary to keep the unemployed from moving to areas begging for employees.
Why worry about the budget? Just keep buying whatever the bureaucrats desire. Do not worry about having enough income from taxes to feed those desires. The Chinese are always, or at least have been up to this point, willing to loan us whatever money we ask for.
So what, if the Chinese foreclose on those loans by taking over the country? They are socialists, and therefore would give us the best type government we could hope for.
That’s what progressives want. Total control of everything and everyone from Washington. This includes total ownership of the property and wealth of the country so that it could be redistributed on a “fair” basis so long as that fairness included a larger share far the hard working bureaucrats.
So here’s the perspective.
An Etymologist, or one who studies words, might disagree with the meanings given to radical and progressive in this item. As described here, the pundits seem to have hung wrong labels on the two political movements.
As discussed here, progressive government has a better ring to it than a radical government. Reality, however, is a better sounding board than the writings or musings of political pundits. In reality, radical government activities favor individuality.
What’s your choice?