Fairness rarely comes without a fight
 |
| I'm up here and you're down here. |
According to the story, and I think this is the meat of his claim:
Rubio, whose parents emigrated to the United States from Cuba, described the drive that Americans possess, calling the United States a nation of "go-getters" and sharing the story of his own father, who worked as a bartender as he struggled to provide a better future for his children.
Republicans like to say that the only division in America is between the rich and the soon to be rich, which, if it were true, would be a very lovely division in our society.
On this view, there is no problem with our economic system at all. We simply need more of the same.
The reality, as we know, and as Democrats claim, is that the gap in wealth between the very rich and the rest of us is getting larger. The fact that this "claim" is empirically verifiable seems irrelevant to Rubio.
Eric Fernstrohm, in discussing a recent Democratic ad targeting Romney's association with Bain Capital, said something to the effect that "you never win elections in American attacking capitalism." I have to think that this is true if you are attacking the idea of capitalism, but if what you are doing is criticizing capitalism as currently practised with the goal of making it fairer, I'm not sure that is a losing proposition at all.
I can see where the Republicans are trying to go in the upcoming election. They are trying to suggest that Democrats are attempting to do away with the very possibility of success for anyone. But that is ridiculous. Democrats are capitalist. President Obama is certainly a capitalist. Their goal is to ensure that more people have a shot at doing well.
The argument against Republican economics is that, if recent history is our guide, fewer people will have the chance to succeed as people like Rubio's parent's did.
What Rubio is arguing for, and what the GOP is arguing for, is a politics that doesn't rock the boat. But if we don't rock the boat, we won't be fixing the problem that need to be fixed. In the course of American history, when change has been required, those who have benefited from the status quo have always claimed the other side was being divisive. They always frightened people with the argument that any change will bring disorder and should be avoided. This has always been how conservatives have made their case.
But sometimes, as one of the greatest voices of conservative philosophy, Edmund Burke, once said, it is true that radical measures are needed to preserve the intention of the system we claim to hold dear.
If fairness in how goods are distributed in a capitalist system is a paramount value in our way of life, as it ought to be, I would suggest that President Obama is one of the greatest voices for those who wish to bring the country together.
If your interested is in representing those who benefit from the way things now are, I can understand how you might view Obama as "the most divisive figure in modern American history." As someone very wise once said, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you're sitting pretty, Obama is a divisive figure.
(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)
On this view, there is no problem with our economic system at all. We simply need more of the same.
The reality, as we know, and as Democrats claim, is that the gap in wealth between the very rich and the rest of us is getting larger. The fact that this "claim" is empirically verifiable seems irrelevant to Rubio.
Eric Fernstrohm, in discussing a recent Democratic ad targeting Romney's association with Bain Capital, said something to the effect that "you never win elections in American attacking capitalism." I have to think that this is true if you are attacking the idea of capitalism, but if what you are doing is criticizing capitalism as currently practised with the goal of making it fairer, I'm not sure that is a losing proposition at all.
I can see where the Republicans are trying to go in the upcoming election. They are trying to suggest that Democrats are attempting to do away with the very possibility of success for anyone. But that is ridiculous. Democrats are capitalist. President Obama is certainly a capitalist. Their goal is to ensure that more people have a shot at doing well.
The argument against Republican economics is that, if recent history is our guide, fewer people will have the chance to succeed as people like Rubio's parent's did.
What Rubio is arguing for, and what the GOP is arguing for, is a politics that doesn't rock the boat. But if we don't rock the boat, we won't be fixing the problem that need to be fixed. In the course of American history, when change has been required, those who have benefited from the status quo have always claimed the other side was being divisive. They always frightened people with the argument that any change will bring disorder and should be avoided. This has always been how conservatives have made their case.
But sometimes, as one of the greatest voices of conservative philosophy, Edmund Burke, once said, it is true that radical measures are needed to preserve the intention of the system we claim to hold dear.
If fairness in how goods are distributed in a capitalist system is a paramount value in our way of life, as it ought to be, I would suggest that President Obama is one of the greatest voices for those who wish to bring the country together.
If your interested is in representing those who benefit from the way things now are, I can understand how you might view Obama as "the most divisive figure in modern American history." As someone very wise once said, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you're sitting pretty, Obama is a divisive figure.
(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)
Labels: 2012 election, Barack Obama, capitalism, Marco Rubio, Republicans
posted by Richard K. Barry at
6:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home