Entry tags:
Another Difference between Demorats and Republicans
Years ago, I remember seeing posters titled "The Difference between Republicans and Democrats." I don't remember most of the items; the only one I remember right offhand was "Republicans employ exterminators; Democrats step on bugs." I'm sure they're all out there on the Internet somewhere.
Another one that came to mind is that Democrats have "elites" while Republicans have "aristocracies". Elites are the top people; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama may have started out fairly low on the totem pole, but they rose to the top by merit and hard work and a lot of luck. Aristocrats are also on top, but they got there by "choosing their parents properly." George W. Bush is the classic example 1. As football coach Barry Switzer put it, "he was born on third base and went through life thinking he hit a triple."
Consider the nominating process for President. Democrats, it's hard to tell who's going to win; Republicans, it's the guy who's "due". An occasional Republican will upset the apple cart (Goldwater and Reagan), but with the Democrats it happens all the time. At the beginning of their primary seasons, Carter and Clinton were unknowns. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was "supposed to" win; all the big-name, big money Democrats were on her side 2. In 2012, Mitt Romney walked in and took the nomination as the only "not completely batshit crazy" candidate. Huntsman and Johnson, also not completely crazy, were roundly ignored by everybody. He'd been effectively running for at least six years; he was due. Besides, his father was one of the most impressive liberal Republicans of his era, as well as being a top businessman 3. The fact that Mitt Romney was the least personable candidate in memory just didn't matter; supposedly Karl Rove could get a rotten stump elected (see Dubya).
Look at who Republican policies benefit. It's not really "the one percent". Most of them are simply professionals who are doing well at their careers. It's not the real entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Elon Musk; I don't hear them whining about their taxes. It's the "inherited money" crowd. The thing that they're really pushing is the elimination of the inheritance tax. That tax was introduced specifically to prevent the formation of enormous family fortunes.
Anyway, remember what they say about "aristocrats."
1 Re G.W. Bush: He and I are the same age. When I was getting ready to graduate from high school and figuring out which colleges to apply for, my guidance councilor told me not to bother sending applications to the Ivy League; my SAT scores weren't nearly high enough. My scores were a bit higher than Georgie's -- 300 points higher. Georgie had no trouble getting into Yale; he's a "legacy admission". This is simply affirmative action for rich folks. Also, his family gave lots of money to the university.
2 IMHO, this is the real reason Obama won the nomination. Hillary's advisers were the architects of all the big Democratic victories between 1994 and 2006.
3 Well, president of American Motors, anyway. Nobody's perfect.
Another one that came to mind is that Democrats have "elites" while Republicans have "aristocracies". Elites are the top people; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama may have started out fairly low on the totem pole, but they rose to the top by merit and hard work and a lot of luck. Aristocrats are also on top, but they got there by "choosing their parents properly." George W. Bush is the classic example 1. As football coach Barry Switzer put it, "he was born on third base and went through life thinking he hit a triple."
Consider the nominating process for President. Democrats, it's hard to tell who's going to win; Republicans, it's the guy who's "due". An occasional Republican will upset the apple cart (Goldwater and Reagan), but with the Democrats it happens all the time. At the beginning of their primary seasons, Carter and Clinton were unknowns. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was "supposed to" win; all the big-name, big money Democrats were on her side 2. In 2012, Mitt Romney walked in and took the nomination as the only "not completely batshit crazy" candidate. Huntsman and Johnson, also not completely crazy, were roundly ignored by everybody. He'd been effectively running for at least six years; he was due. Besides, his father was one of the most impressive liberal Republicans of his era, as well as being a top businessman 3. The fact that Mitt Romney was the least personable candidate in memory just didn't matter; supposedly Karl Rove could get a rotten stump elected (see Dubya).
Look at who Republican policies benefit. It's not really "the one percent". Most of them are simply professionals who are doing well at their careers. It's not the real entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Elon Musk; I don't hear them whining about their taxes. It's the "inherited money" crowd. The thing that they're really pushing is the elimination of the inheritance tax. That tax was introduced specifically to prevent the formation of enormous family fortunes.
Anyway, remember what they say about "aristocrats."
1 Re G.W. Bush: He and I are the same age. When I was getting ready to graduate from high school and figuring out which colleges to apply for, my guidance councilor told me not to bother sending applications to the Ivy League; my SAT scores weren't nearly high enough. My scores were a bit higher than Georgie's -- 300 points higher. Georgie had no trouble getting into Yale; he's a "legacy admission". This is simply affirmative action for rich folks. Also, his family gave lots of money to the university.
2 IMHO, this is the real reason Obama won the nomination. Hillary's advisers were the architects of all the big Democratic victories between 1994 and 2006.
3 Well, president of American Motors, anyway. Nobody's perfect.
