Thursday, July 19, 2012

Proof seeking

Question: When and where has Republican ideology worked to benefit the majority of a population? The Republican ideology of low taxation, minimal regulation, small government, privatization.

What I mean is when has this actually been proven to work? In what country? How did it improve things for the general population and lead to growth that helped improve the living conditions of the many?

Here in the United States, has it worked? When?

I'm sincere here. I'm not creating an opportunity to bash. I really want to know. I want examples of how this has worked in the past.

Tomorrow's question - If Republicans were to have their way, how would that work? What would it look like? What would be the results of a November election putting Republicans in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House?


  1. Republicans have infrastructure (Fox News, Clear Channel), funding (Citizens United, MIC, Koch brothers), ideology (think tanks), and talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck). Therefore they dominate the airwaves with propaganda and attacks. When the last time you seen/heard a Progressive idea? The compliant media rarely calls out the disingenuous so they become bullies and more aggressive in their behavior. Anybody with an opinion is given equal standing even if a Google search would silence them.

    The American conscience seems to have an attention span of a few months. This is unfortunate. Most of the hardships affecting people’s lives are a direct result of the financial crisis, sluggish economy, and bad decisions from the last Administration. Notwithstanding, this Administration hasn’t made jobs their number one priority.

    If Obama can’t overcome these obstacles then his fate is sealed. His only chance is to stop attacking Romney personally and follow traditional Democratic policies that could help people: taxes of the wealthy, re-regulation, and job growth. Then he has to frame everything in a narrative with examples people can relate to. He has to make Romney the second coming of the Bush presidency.

    Remember, Truman was supposed to lose to Dewey but didn't.

  2. The Country's in terrible shape from decades of Republican policies yet voters keep electing Republicans ... er, what was the question?

  3. "Improvement" isn't the job of the bad cop.

  4. >"Improvement" isn't the job of the bad cop.

    But it _is_ the job of elected officials.

  5. I don't know which side has the best ideas; I decided they were liars a long time ago.

    We need to stop treating these people like they're gods or rock stars. They're just people like we are, and they should DO what they are paid to do. Bottom line: if WE as people - EMPLOYEES - had the track records like most politicians do these days, WE WOULD BE FIRED.

  6. It's never worked, anywhere. On the other hand, liberal policies have worked all over the world.

  7. Since when is "improvement" the job of the government? I would argue that the principle behind the Republican ideology is at its essence what the Constitution was originally designed to do....limit government so people could live their lives and make their own successes how they choose. Everything in the Constitution itself is based on what government can do, period. The Bill of Rights takes that a step further to say what it cannot do....even though the Constitution specifically said if it ain't in here, the govt. can't do it...that's how important it was to keep govt limited.

    I can spend valuable pixels pointing to the economic successes of Coolidge, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush which I will get a bombardment of oh look what happened after....and while I could point out that despite all those Republicans claiming to support limited govt...they all allowed govt spending to increase...and we can talk about business cycles, and creative destruction, and so on and so forth...and for every argument I'll get about how disastrous Repub policies were, I will point to the enormous failure of the War on Poverty, the bankrupting of Social Security, and so on....but we'll always end up in the same place...what is the proper role for government? Is it to improve our lives? Is it to make everything equal for all --as if this was even possible? Obviously I would say no, and most of your readers would say yes.
    For me, I would like government to stay out of the way as much as possible....set limits that we as a society agree should not be exceeded...but not go so far as to tell me what is an acceptable way to live my life. Neither liberal nor conservative ideology will ever work as long as we continue to allow the abdication of personal responsibility...the lack of a safety net sharpens the mind and and tempers the passions of humans....but instead, we say government has to step in....

    1. I'm glad to hear from all of you. I believe that government serves many roles. It exists to do what each of us cannot do on our own (infrastructure). It exists to pool our resources to provide protection (fire fighters, police, public health). I also believe that government performs best when it has an educated and informed populace that understands the foundation, role, functions and limitations of government (education).

  8. It clearly depends on how you determine/define "benefit". If you talk in terms of rights - privacy, liberty, etc. - limited gov't clearly benefits everyone. Limited - not NO - regulation, regulation that is smart and targeted, clearly is a net greater benefit to the population as a whole, but not to government power. Gov't regulation tends to be a blunt instrument and generally we'd be better served by the strategic use of a scalpel. You regulate ONLY what you must and allow individuals the opportunities they need.

    You asked how it improved life for the many; the USofA has, for most of it's incarnation, lived by those limited gov't principles you're deriding. Yet the US has become the most prosperous, most influential, and most sought-to-immigrate to country in the history of the world. It has worked right here, for a long time. The problem is, as we have matured and prospered as a country, we now want to equalize outcomes, not opportunities - and what you've summarized above clearly will not do that.

    If benefit = outcome, there is a reasonable argument to be made that minimal gov't and personal freedom will not provide the "best" chance at that. Guess what - really - not everyone wants equal outcome, there are a great number of people that want equal opportunity and value liberty more than some perception of fair outcomes.


Tell me about it...