In some respects, I understand and can rationalize the perspective of the ultra-conservative as relating to the quoted issue.
It is a sad state of affairs, but there *is* some truth to the notion that you get more of what you pay for. However, it is not the true fault of the impoverished for their circumstance, and it certainly is not the fault of the child he would have sweeping floors and suffering social ostracism over.
Rather than try to spin it that way, he would be better served to suggest livably paying wages for government works projects, similar to the work programs produced by FDR. The problem is that such a suggestion is counter-intuitive with their resource allocation objectives. (Ahem).
The behavior of the ultra conservative is quite polar, and stark in its nature. They revel in the "us VS them!" Mantra, which is why they sensationalize nationalistic pride based propaganda ("America, Love it or Leave it!" And pals, like "America is #1!"), and also why they fixate on military expenditure, and shows of military might. This mode of behavior does not demonstrate much critical or rational thought. The core basis of the "Us VS others!" Impulse is directly implicated in the rather seedy reputation that this demographic has concerning racism, and the clearly irrational views they hold over domestic resource allocations, and fears about wealth distributions. It perfectly accepts and even glorifies the need for national intelligence agencies and their gross over-reaches in operation such as our NSA has been revealed to be, and the nebulous "them!" Are ascribed as basically anyone outside of the USA-- this can be clearly seen in some recent rhetoric on the comments sections of news websites for NYT and the Guardian concerning Edward Snowden. He fled the country, and applied for assylum in a foriegn country, (which for such persons equates to "THEM!"), and thus is "clearly a traitor", because his efforts have undermined the "US", and empowered the "them!" To ask very uncomfortable and damning questions. (They view this as aiding and abetting the enemy, and thus grounds for treason charges. Nevermind that they cannot definitively state who that "enemy" is. Their world view necessitates the existence of this malevolent force, and it gets blanket applied to everything "outside".)
Since their views are reactionary, impulsive, and irrational, they are deadly allergic to reasoned discussion, and typically resort immediately to fallacious arguments, mazes of circular reasoning, and outright character assasination to silence such discourse. You can find this in copious abundance on shows for known ultra-con mouthpieces, such as the bill o'reily show. It is also the driving factor behind the clearly suicidal behaviors seen by the "dark money" contributions from well know ultra-cons to their various "thinktank groups", like the Heritage foundation, for the purposes of creating bunk scientific publications to cast doubt on well founded objective research that conflicts with their worldviews. (Say HI for me, mr Koch.)
On the flipside, you have the equally deleterious (but in different ways) ultra-liberals, who seem to have no reasonable conception of modesty, integrity, honesty, or objective reality, but instead focus on their own worldview which emphasises a false assertion that utopia is possible, and that government should provide everything. This group is actually quite disingenuous in many respects. Ultracons are quite easy to read and predict, as their fear and paranoia based decision making follows a very specific pattern. The ultralibs (they are not actually liberals, btw.) on the other hand, cater to well intentioned but not well knowledgable people to attain political power using outright lies, then cater to their own private interests for self enrichment. Their primary supporters are idiological people who mean well, and see them as the "clearly better" alternative to che "clearly batshit insane" ultracons. However, voting for these people is equally irrational in the greater sense; everything they say is a lie, they do not actually produce policies intent on improving or normalizing the american social landscape (they thrive on the issues created by inequality, and actually would have a conflict of interest to actually resolve the problems they address in their campaign speeches.) The major accomplishments of this "silly party" (ultracons are the "very silly party") are things like copyright that lasts for lifetime of the creator, plus 70 years, with strong negotiations to make that into 120 years from their REAL constituents (just follow the campaign donation trail.), the patriot act, which was bipartisanly enacted and renewed twice now, (both silly and very silly parties profit from the resulting inequalities, just in different ways) chilling reductions in the powers of free speech, and boondoggles like the ACA. (Really. It's a travesty on paper.) Their MO is more difficult to provide a general rule for, as they appear to be more a motley assortment of smiling sociopaths than a coherent (in that it sticks together, not in that it is reasonable) idiological group like the ultracons.
Personally, I would pay huge sums of money to the campaign of a candidate that is frank, upfront, and presents their positions with well reasoned and established positions on hard evidence. They must not have questionable histories of quid pro quo (Obama has this in spades. Check out the loan agreements he got from his bank buddies while he was a congressman.), and must not promise the moon, a dinner and a box of chocolates while on campaign.
I have yet to encounter such a creature in the political quagmire that is US politics, however.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 837896 times)