Wednesday, January 05, 2005

‘Out of Control’

Early on in George W. Bush’s presidency I found several of his positions odd for a “conservative” president.

First… “conservatism” should be put into its proper context… isn’t “conservatism” supposed to be the idea that “people are responsible for their own lives” and that the government “shouldn’t be the nanny”? Hasn’t the idea of “conservatism” been to slow down or even decrease federal expansion? Under the “conservative” banner isn’t the federal government supposed to have LESS control over peoples’ lives?

What about the basic ingredients of the “Christian-conservative” philosophy? Aren’t they supposed to be FOR people and AGAINST government and special interests? Aren’t they supposed to be obvious and common sense positions?

Well, these were the assumptions I was operating on, thinking what I had always understood “conservatism” to be.

I had had my doubts about Bush all along. For instance, it had been discouraging to see the “Christian” and “conservative” Bush people attack, smear and discredit John McCain in the primaries… in the name of “Christianity” and “conservatism.”

Even though I have always believed that an un-Christian act should not be committed in furtherance of “Christian” beliefs I was assured by several Christian Bushbots after he was barely elected that Bush was actually a “Christian conservative.”

What’s the saying… “believe me and not your lying eyes”?

But, for my lying eyes, with Bush, strange things kept happening. After a while a pattern emerged.

The pattern is this: “Control” then “Profit for Corporations.” Everything the Bush Administration does fits one or both of these profiles.

On the “control” side Bush put forth his “religious initiative.” It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see that many religions could be influenced by government funds much the way the individual states have been corrupted.

With Bush’s “religious initiative” — in the name of “charity” — churches can now be coaxed into changing their doctrines regarding a variety of social issues in order to qualify for government funds. Even if “conservatives” trust Bush with this program — and I don’t believe they should — they certainly will not be able to trust others who might be president someday.

In any event this program does not allow churches and charities to rely on themselves but puts government directly into the mix and, therefore, in control. The program is also an expansion of the federal government and NOT “conservative.”

Another issue that encompassed both “control” and “profit” was the one regarding medicines from Canada. Desperate seniors who needed to pay for medical supplies AND pay for living expenses were getting their drugs from Canada, which bought them directly from American companies and then subsidized the drugs through their government.

In other words… the drugs were the same ones they would be buying in America but the cost was infinitely less than people would pay here. There wouldn’t have been anything wrong with that unless somebody wanted to control it for their own selfish reasons.

And… someone did.

Bush put a stop to this in a variety of ways; he criminalized those who were selling the Canadian (American) drugs to seniors in this country, he further beefed up the security on the Canadian border (while lessening this on the southern border), and got laws passed regarding the sale of Canadian drugs to Americans.

He also began a campaign of fear aimed at seniors, through the Department of Health and Human Services, with scary phrases like “unsafe drugs” and “contamination” — concerning drugs made by American companies and also available in America but for higher prices.

The only outcome, of course, was that seniors were forced to buy the same drugs for higher prices made by Bush’s donors at American companies…

… “control” then “profit for corporations.”

The on-going illegal alien/national security/lower wages issue is one that is nakedly increasing profits for corporations. Bush continues to say the illegals are here to “do the jobs Americans will not do.” But, they are flooding the American job market and causing decreased wages and benefits for American workers and increased profits for corporations.

Bush not only wants to legalize this practice but also enhance it.

Bush’s new “amnesty” initiative, which he calls a “guest worker” initiative but which allows illegals to come here and stay indefinitely, would allow corporations to actually advertise outside of the country for workers.

The new saying should be “they are here to do the jobs Americans aren’t allowed to do.”

The middle class, a living wage and national security aside, it isn’t hard to imagine what this treasonous plan will do: It will further erode the standard of living for American workers, put control and the law on the side of corporations and encourage even more illegal aliens to come into the country.

Again… “Control” then “Profit for Corporations.”

There are many other issues Bush has decided the past few years besides these, all of them fitting one or both of the profiles; tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs, the dissolution of the 40-hour workweek … which also follow the pattern of benefiting corporations to the detriment of American citizens.

But, let’s digest his future plans…

Now that we are stuck with Bush for another four years we are already hearing his new ideas for us. The latest one in the news this week is… “frivolous lawsuits.”

In his rhetoric, Bush is tying “frivolous lawsuits” directly into the healthcare industry, with which millions of Americans are desperately searching for answers. But what his plan actually entails is a limitation upon American citizens and their rights to sue (guess what?)… any corporation for whatever reason.

To be sure… there ARE “frivolous lawsuits.” But what about people who have actually been injured by a company’s negligence, defective products and quacky doctors? It won’t matter if Bush gets his way. Again, there will be one entity benefiting from Bush’s plan… his buds in corporations.

Companies and corporations should not be penalized or inhibited by the federal government. But it’s not the president’s job to enrich them by penalizing and inhibiting American citizens. In fact, the president isn’t supposed to do anything BUT look out for American citizens.

“Control” then “Profit for Corporations.”

Sadly, this is what motivates President Bush in ALL situations and on ALL issues.

Check for yourself and see if this pattern is not applied to absolutely any action by this administration.

It isn’t “Christian,” it isn’t “conservative” and … it ain’t pretty.


At 12:23 PM, Blogger Dr. Forbush said...

Actually Conservative means to keep things the same. Over time however, things have changed, so conservative tend to want to put things back to the way they were in the "good old days." Unfortunately most conservatives don't know exactly when those good old days were and which things need to be put back.

However, in reality all of that is a ruse, because they party leaders don't really care about it. The party leaders are more concerned with keeping their inherited wealth. In the old days the wealthy had more power and control over the lower classes, so the idea of turning the clock back can be used to give the wealthy more power, like they had in the old days.

At 2:35 PM, Blogger Travis said...

Good points!

I find it strange in the last few years how fiscal conservatism, once the bedrock of the Republican platform, has been tossed out the window. Now the deficit is looming larger than at any time in history.

Similarly, when Bush was Governor of Texas he was big on states' rights--yet another historical tenet of conservatism past. Now, however, a Federal Amendment to the constitution banning states' rights to allow certain marriages is a big part of Bush's second term.

At 6:11 PM, Blogger Funky Fresh Freddie said...


At 6:16 PM, Blogger Kerry R. Fox said...

No, no Freddie. You've got the wrong chant card... it's "¡10 MÁS AÑOS! ¡10 MÁS AÑOS!"

At 9:01 AM, Blogger Laura said...

It is beyond me how more "conservatives" do not see this for themselves..

And really... should that be "10 more years" in Chinese???

At 9:50 AM, Blogger Kerry R. Fox said...

"And really... should that be "10 more years" in Chinese???"

Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Panjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu,, Farsi... take your pick.

At 11:49 PM, Blogger SheaNC said...

I heartily agree with this post, and it is quite refreshing to hear Dr. Forbush's accurate definition of conservatism. The word has been so misused and misdefined over the last 20 years, along with others like "liberalism".


Post a Comment

<< Home