|
Zonie63 -> RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? (11/10/2012 10:40:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
FR
Zonie, I agree that rampant consumerism is hurting us (and has been hurting us for a while).
I think consumerism is a double-edged sword. It has both its good and bad aspects.
quote:
And to those who think government doesn't have a role to play in this, I want you to consider that government policies affect our economy. And right wingers seem to feel that a certain portion of Americans are entitled to government policies to protect their current situation (low taxes, low wages, low benefits to the poor, trade restrictions, etc.) In other words if one side is invoking government policy to protect themselves, then I do feel that government has to step in and say "enough".
I agree to an extent, although I would suggest that it's not just the government. Other powerful entities within society also have had a role in promoting rampant consumerism. Also, I wouldn't say that the consumers are totally innocent in all of this either. As an example, Christmas shopping season is starting to heat up, and Wal-Mart just announced that it's opening up on Thanksgiving at 8pm - earlier than the usual Black Friday sales start times. Who are these people who line up and wait all night for stores to open? The government isn't telling these people to do this; they do it of their own free will. What creates this kind of obsessive irrationality? Who decided that we needed to keep up with the Joneses, and why does most everybody try to do it? If we can identify the cause of that, then we might be closer to a solution.
I think conservatives would agree that the role of government would include promoting political stability within the nation, and that's why many of these programs were implemented in the first place. The wealthy once realized that their interests would be better served by supporting some measure of sustenance and help for the poor, as well as a better standard of living for the working classes. Better to throw the peasants a few bones rather than have them "storm the Winter Palace." In the earlier part of the 20th century, the wealthy and powerful political elite was more worried about political extremism and being overthrown entirely. So, the campaign of political reforms and social programs commonly referred to in today's parlance as "liberalism" was implemented by the wealthy to bring about political stability to protect their own interests. Plus, it keeps people dependent upon the system to such a degree that they're not likely to bite the hand that feeds them.
quote:
I also agree with everyone above who points out that there is a fundamental issue of how to define "living better". And I would also say that we as a nation should start to define what we consider things that government should enable, and what government shouldn't care about. Enabling technology might arguably be a good thing; but building McMansions? Who says government needs to do anything to enable people to build huge homes, or use gas guzzling vehicles?
I suppose there's a deeper philosophical issue about whether having more material goods constitutes living better. It's the old idea that "man does not live by bread alone." There may be other intangible things that humans need to live a better, more fulfilled life. But it can also be argued that, unless people have the freedom to make their own choices based on their own individual values of what they believe is a "better life" for them, then it may be a worse life for everyone in society.
However, when we're talking about the government's role in this, I consider that every government and every political ideology claims to want a "better life" for its people. Some of it is also defined in the image it exudes, both internally and to the outside world. Political leaders, even tyrants, have a sense of pride and ego. They want to think of themselves as great, and that their nations are great because of it. That's why they build huge monuments to themselves. That's why they want to show everyone just how prosperous and happy their people are - which is where the McMansions and the gas-guzzling vehicles come into play. Because of this, it seems likely that governments will continue to enable this process as far as they can go.
quote:
As for the middle class, they shoot themselves in the foot every time. They emulate the wealthy, and have been shown in numerous studies to support right wing policies that do not actually help them currently, but will help them once they become rich, and they all think they will. This has contributed to the shrinking middle class. You can only support a strong middle class if you have the policies in place to support them. If you support only the rich and the poor, then guess what, you end up with a polarized society.
Very true.
quote:
And the middle class mistakenly think that their interests are actually aligned with the wealthy, and vote disproportionately for right wing policies. Guess what middle class. Your interests are actually your own, and are much more closely aligned with liberal policies than conservative one. It's laughable (and sad) when labor class supports policies designed only to help capitalists.
I agree that the middle class has shot itself in the foot more than once.
But I can think of some cases where the middle class might very well consider that their interests are aligned with the wealthy. For example, those whose livelihoods depend on defense spending are going to support candidates who are more favorable to that, and they tend to be more conservative than liberal. Those who work for oil companies or nuclear power plants might feel that their interests are better represented by conservatives over liberals. So, there may very well be some legitimate reasons for middle class people to vote conservative over liberal.
It's not that they're necessarily aligning themselves with the wealthy, but they also see liberalism as being led by the wealthy as well. They look at the big name liberals in this country and see people who much wealthier than they are. They might feel that they have good cause to wonder whether liberal policies are truly in their best interests. From their point of view, it might be a matter of having to choose which faction of wealthy people they're going to support. But either way, they end up supporting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of their own interests.
Also, to a large extent, I can see where working class people might feel somewhat abandoned by liberals, as they haven't really stuck to the basics and stood by the interests of working people as strongly as they did in the past. Liberalism involves support of multiple issues which have sometimes been in conflict with each other. The labor class can sometimes find themselves in conflict with other commonly-held liberal positions, such as environmentalism and immigration. Not to mention that working class people who are also religious tend to find themselves in conflict with various liberal social positions.
|
|
|
|
