I, too, have wondered about this. I get it that the people who object to “tax and spend” politicians feel that Americans are paying taxes that are too high and govt is spending too much on programs of dubious worth. I don’t get why what Bush has been doing is not seen as being even worse: he reduced taxes without a corresponding reduction in spending – and his tax cut benefited mainly the richest one or two percent. Also, I thought that the people who oppose “tax and spend” politicians and the people who want to reduce the size and power of govt were one and the same. Seems to me that under Bush, the size and power of govt is increasing.
I think Republicans are like the citizens of Pleasantville and George W. Bush is their mayor. Everything is nice and simple and in black and white- no pesky colors to muddy things up. There aren’t any inner cities and people that are poor could escape and become wealthy if only by golly they took advantage of all the opportunities that tax cuts provide. John Kerry is like the brooding soda jerk that sees that life is more than this but the residents of Pleasantville can’t open their eyes.
That’s absurd, especially when we’re talking about the Bush administration, which blatantly favors ideology over practicality. George II surrounds himself with “true believers” like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, while alienating results-minded individuals like Paul O’Neill and Eric Shinseki.
In fact, Rummie and Wolfie publicly disparaged Shinseki’s estimates that hundreds of thousands of troops would be necessary to win the war and secure the peace in Iraq, despite the fact that the former are civilians and the latter is a General who headed up the operation in Bosnia. We now know, from bitter experience, that Shinseki was of course right. (A decent article here.)
If you want a peek into how Bush buys idealism over pragmatism in the economic sector, read the O’Neill-Suskind book “The Price of Loyalty”.
If this is the Republican’s top man, you’re just plain wrong on this one.
I believe that’s the big issue, here. What is exactly needed to insure this equality of opportunity?
For instance :
I certainly believe that socialized medecine is one of these necessary elements. Without adequate access to medical care, people don’t have equal opportunities (making the assumption that in most case, people aren’t responsible for their health issues). Because without socialized medecine, a large number of people with low incomes and serious health issues won’t have any access to medical care at all, because they just can’t pay for the real cost of heart surgery or cancer drugs.
So, you need some level of socialized medecine to achieve this equality of opportunity. Or only leave to some the opportunity of dying. And what level of socialized medecine is required we’re often arguing about.
That would apply to essentially everything. Even if we agree on the necessity of an equality of opportunity, we’re going to disagree on what this should include exactly. To give an extreme example, should everybody be handed an equal sum of money upon reaching 18 to make sure that people coming from poor families have the same opportunities as people coming from well-off families? More usual issue : what about affirmative action, for instance? What about free education? If you don’t disagree with the existence of free primary schools or high schools to insure this equal opportunity, why not free universities?
There’s obviously no equal opportunity. The election of G.W. Bush as president in the USA is a blatant example of this. How likely is it that the son of a previous president would be the one elected if everybody had actually the same opportunities in the political field? One in 200 millions or so. Obviously, all people don’t have the same shot at a political career. And actually, they don’t have the same shot at anything.
Well, to be fair to Sam Stone, he didn’t say the US was like that now, just that he would like it to be like that.
Yet, but your Party, traditionally, is not so open-minded. History shows Republicans follow a laissez-faire philosophy towards business as if business can regulate itself, but it cannot. And, socially, they execute a social Darwinian view of those in need. Why then, of all the living Presidents (as well as Reagan and Nixon) do we only hear of Jimmy Carter doing things for humanity?
And how else could the Republicans pick “Tricky Dicky” to be their man? After the McCarthey era, I guess they placed their bets on the younger generation not being aware to past events. And then, look what he once in Office!
I think Republicans prefer to say love thy money more than love thy neighbor. And then, the Moral Majority (of the 1980’s) under Reagan had the nerve to tell us how to bring morals back into our lives! Excuse me?
Democrats are for social programs for the needy; Republicans prefer welfare for the greedy. IMHO, the OP is right on target. - Jinx
Actually, this part was more a personnal comment than a response to ** Sam Stone **. And I don’t think it reflects solely on the US, but more generally on our democratic systems. This blatant exemple shows that despite our pretenses, the emperor has no clothes.
Aw, how cute! Your talking point rhymes 
.