With the Obama Speech - 6 September 2012

 The 2012 Political Contest -- Opinion.

 

It is perhaps entirely true the speakers from the U.S.'s major liberal party have a smoother and more easy going style in their public appearances and talks, save for one or two extremely strident leftists who appeared at the Democratic party convention podium within the last few days.  The U.S. Democratic party at this point, as many liberal parties do, has portrayed itself as the pragmatic and businesslike political voice at this point.  This is no different from the message as given by any liberal party in any fair election in the free world; there's nothing wrong with it, it's just the same old line, I might respectfully propose here, that liberal parties in the Western world have been talking since time immemorial.  With respect to this, and with respect to the current economic / commercial / business climate in the U.S. and its international position with respect to same, there are many within our shores who do believe the federal government should remain as it stands, with its current role in many of the lives of the U.S. populace as guide and guarantor.  There is nothing wrong with this thinking, especially given the overflow of issues the Democrats are covering in this election - maybe to guide the voting attitude and attention of the populace, but more probably just to promote the agenda of their party that makes the federal administration in many cases everyone's biggest customer - from taxes, to services, and even to the goods we buy at the local store or online.  There is an argument somewhere in the literature that if your populace is bored and apathetic, and if there are seemingly unbearable social and other problems afoot, that liberal governments are indeed a way of muddling through these issues.  In other words, if you are battered and have little faith in yourself as an American at this point, and you are relinquishing your strengths for the most part to make a life for yourself and your family, sometimes in some countries right now an evident and obvious political trend, then vote Democratic in the November general election. 

 

There is a contrarian and again, controversial attitude for the voter as presented in a challenging way by the Republicans at this point, and this has to do with an overall avoidance involved with the paternalism (in fact, very tightly knit and even abusive paternalism on the part of a federal or even state administration) as briefly illustrated in the preceding paragraph:  The major campaign difference at this point depends upon the Republican contrasting the Democrats as those soliciting the business of big government, with more revenues to the public sector through taxes and debt proceeds, primarily; to the basic Republican ideas of getting going on solving the problems of the day through debate and consensus, and without the totem of public enterprise that is worshipped by many liberals.  The conservative party in America does as an entirety probably believe such attribution to the federal administration, that of social and societal benefits and guarantees in increasingly risky public finance schemes (as things have to be paid for,) is unnecessary insofar as private and regional interests can more narrowly define and solve the issues and problems of the day instead of the kind of centrist fortification the Democrats believe in themselves.  The speakers of the day at the latest party convention in North Carolina extoll the virtues of big government and encourage everyone listening and watching to value big government projects and financing, and why not?

 

The fact remains that history is full of examples in which funding for public projects was made by nation states and their process of approval through bicameral legislature and checks and balances, and this even though the projects were extremely costly and later bankrupted the governments completely.  The 'pragmatic' liberals at this point in America might nod to themselves that we are already in an unrecoverable situation with respect to finances and compare and contrast other regions, for example, that are supposed to be worse, and that their "liberal" governments have seen them through.  This is really untrue, as America still has a very high standard of living far above most of its international neighbors, and for the time being, and the U.S. can withstand currently its big government expenses:  Right now, but maybe not much longer given the somewhat gloomy international recipe many economies have going forward into the future at this point.  Even the greatly dependable economic producers of late, China and the 'Four Tigers' (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, …) and many other world regional economies predictably face the doldrums in the new media and other current business and commercial forecasts.  This might in part be due to internal uncertainties in different regions, uncertainties about state and regional leadership and the like, but it has put a damper on the U.S. future in its role as international economic / political, etc., leader and powerhouse.  This limitation is worrisome and especially given the tone of the speakers at the Democratic convention, promises an eventual selling of the proverbial seed corn that has our federal government watching over us and providing a safety net and other offices for people to turn to. 

 

Even for the most dour and pessimistic of voters, probably among whom I do count myself, who will cast their votes in November, it becomes clear after a quick study of the promises made within the last few days, that our federal administration can only do so much to guarantee the quality of our lives, and this no matter how many tax and other dollars are spent on the subject.  This is an ordinary case of diminishing returns to the kind of federal policies we have had in the last few years or so, not including the wars, and while only the general election will prove whether or not people need it stopped, the treatment of the federal and state treasuries as a policy in the collection and expenditures process in which they have been treated of late is extremely dangerous to the political process in the capitol, and even more dangerous in the burdens it presents to the ordinary U.S. citizen, no matter the imputed or promised benefits.  The great idealist and thinker Max Weber, in his writings, did cite a principle in which political representatives and administrators, especially the leading ones, had a main obligation to digest and solve issues and problems in ways understandable to the common people and the voting public.  This is perhaps one of the strong points of our democracy as our leadership, with its checks and balances, has almost always obliged itself to do.  The way public finances have been ignored by the current administration and its related policies in its doings have never been altogether clear and in this way present a prospective danger to the relationship between the voter / taxpayer and the federal administration in the U.S.  No one seems to have pointed this glaring issue in and of itself to the public and this is because the identities of the problem are everyone's purview. 

 

The tree of public finances appears to have been shaken too much at this point by the current leadership and this has proven dangerous - a.  To the young and able people in this country who want to pursue high - quality education; b.  The ability of wage earners to provide for their families financially, primarily due to federal tax and other burdens; c.  The lack of perceived benefits in pursuing administrative careers does alienate and turn away capable people; d.  At a time of heavy spending among what appear to be cliquish and closely - knit federal departments and programs, the voter / citizen / wage earner is being asked and compelled to sacrifice things financially and even morally at the hands of people who are feeble as administrators, who have their pet projects, and who solely engage in self - interested rhetoric; the list goes on.  In some ways, the social commentators and thinkers of long ago, and the modern economists with their various models that are admired alike, in their various analyses and conclusions about our status as a nation in choosing a new leader, albeit still formidable and influential in the world overall, would propose serious remedial and needed renewed and fresh efforts to approach the loose ends created by rhetoric and profuse and what some term irresponsible federal spending and its pauperizing effects.  We can continue the current policies of revenue collection and allocated program spending as they are apparent to most voters, and foreseeably face the economics and political situation of governments like Spain or Georgia, for example.  Thus, the call for change and the like among Republican and Democratic candidates is highly appropriate right now:  There will be much thoughtful and rhetorical currency spent on this and related issues as well during the debates and even after election day as these same, basic issues carry much hidden weight and are gravely in need of attention, and have been so since some time in the past. 

 

 

 

Created with Microsoft OneNote 2010
One place for all your notes and information