|
NorthernGent -> RE: Voting Tactics (3/10/2007 4:27:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
At one point in time not long ago, the main criterion for me largely surrounded that of my pocket book. I was very partial to the candidate /party that flew under the banner of serious fiscal responsibility and a mindset born of tight purse strings and governmental frugalness. I've always felt {and still feel} that one of the easiest things in the world to do, is spend someone else’s money. And that ultimately the tax payer’s money is best left to keep for themselves
Now keep in mind that what I'm saying above doesn't mean that what I or anyone else who think this way is necessarily greedy, but when you come from a fiscally conservative background and you see how wasteful these politicians /bureaucrats are with your hard-earned money /production, it's more of a case that you just don't want to see your fruits wasted.
UR, it's fair to say that you and I have a difference of opinion on public spending programmes, but as you point out background is everything, here. I've taken an interest in the posts of people who consider themselves to be traditional conservatives in the US (such as yourself and FargleBargle) and their brand of conservatism. I would say we share many of the same aims and goals with regards to a healthy economy and society, we just have different ideas on how these things are best achieved. The important difference is the starting point of the US compared with Britain. When the US was born, Britain was a nation ran by and for a small minority of the people. It was the British left who changed this in the form of Trade Unions and the British Labour movement through pressure for public spending programmes such as education, health, housing etc and reasonable working hours/conditions. The left is more attractive to Europeans because our history has shown us that unless we form into movements aimed at redistribution of wealth and public concern, we will be exploited by the establishment. Hence, public spending programmes hold a place in the hearts of Europeans (not all by any stretch of the imagination).
The irony is that wealth gap statistics suggest that Europe has become the continent which has reduced class structure and privilege while the US has become the continent promoting a society of haves and have nots.
quote:
ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
But politicians, political parties, and the true identity of the political landscape have changed in the last eight to ten years; things are not often as transparent as they once were. Our traditional perceptions held in terms of ideologies /foundations that we attach to specific candidates /parties can’t be relied upon like they once were.
Politicians cloaked as traditional republicans and democrats now seem to have a more nuanced identity.
Same here, UR. Big business has hijacked politics and they're not overly concerned with values. They want their profits and our two main political parties are dancing to their tune, hence the old ground of left and right has become centre and slightly right of centre. So, I can relate to your situation, here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
So I guess what I am saying is when I think about voting and the election process, I no longer adhere to my traditional perceptions. I do a lot of research and stay away from the special interest /establishment type candidates and look for the person, an individual{even if others say they can't win} who is sharp and really feels honest in a way that’s closest to your average hardworking American.
Fair enough. Sounds like you look for someone matching your values. Out of interest, would you ever consider voting democrat for the sole purpose of removing the neo-cons from central government?
Edited to add:
This is off topic UR and not intended to be criticism, but just some food for thought on how local government is not always as portrayed.
I suppose I'm one of the bureaucrats. I'm a Finance Manager at local government level, ultimately employed by central government. As with any organisation, there are inefficiencies - human fraility does not allow for perfection. We all get paid less than we could in the private sector. What the public don't see is the passion we have in our organisation for improving quality of life. Project Officers and myself all work in excess of the hours we are contracted to work. The Project Officers will go out to projects til 9 o'clock at night (unpaid) when they are contracted to finish at 5. I do anywhere between 5 and 20 hours at weekends (depending on need) - all unpaid and over and above the contract. I also do about 5-10 hours a week in the office over and above my contract. We do it because we are passionate about wanting to give people opportunity. It is nothing to do with being inefficient, it's to do with resources being tight and having to go that extra mile if we want to achieve our goals and generate opportunity for people who have had a less than grand start in life.
The sad fact is that the public sector gets all sorts of accusations thrown at us from people who have never worked in the public sector and do not see our hard work, dedication and passion. Granted, as with all walks of life, there are people in it for an easy ride, but in my experience this is the exception to the rule. If anyone has ever had to sit with a family member in a British hospital for a period of time, including during the night, they would be impressed with the devotion and compassion of the staff who work in hospitals for reasons other than money. In this country, the public sector has been demonised by overtly right-wing media outlets, i.e. Murdoch's business empire (who ain't even British by the way, same with the Canadian who owns other areas of our right-wing media), with accusations of wanton abandon. The public buy into this hook, line and sinker, but what is kept from them is the fact that, between 1987 and 1997, Murdoch paid no net corporation tax on £1.4bn profit earned in Britain. So, who has the nation's interests at heart here: people doing their best to provide opportunity in an environment where they work over and above their contract, regardless of inefficiency brought on by human frailty, or the British elements who throw around accusations without actually working in the public sector (driven, at least in part, by the propaganda of those wanting to wave their obligation to put something back into the society that has played a significant role in generating their wealth).
|
|
|
|
