Michael Moore once described his impression of the average Democrat and it created the picture of a fairly down-to-earth, family oriented individual, who you might think had a dog, liked kids, enjoyed bowling, was pretty easy going, was considerate of others, valued honesty and, the weakness, gave in to others pretty easily. Now that is obviously an over simplification but the point may be well taken that the different political values may tend to draw different common personalities. Even being moderately liberal seems to infer a conscience that dictates more concern for others and accepting more responsibility for the world, while conservatism can be seen as implying a stricter, more self-focused, aggressive and, the fault, a lack of any real community conscience (even in it being seen as a weakness). Taking it one step further, whether liberal or conservative, it should be recognized that any honest and conscience driven person is at a disadvantage when dealing with a person who has no conscience and is easily dishonest. While one is waiting for understanding the other is simply walking away with the goods. Really there are only two ways for an honest person to deal with a dishonest person: one, trying to compete with them and hoping to be successful at being more dishonest than they are (i.e., playing their game), which rarely works; and two, tell them what you expect and will tolerate, bargain no further and accept nothing less. In the early stages the results can favor the dishonest person but as time and the negatives progress, the recognition comes, the patience wanes and the strength gains with the honest person then confidently becoming more firm. Which do you prefer to represent you? First, I am not implying that all Republicans are dishonest by any means yet I do really see a current trend for it to be more tolerated there (maybe just in their several sociopathic personalities). Second, I think the answer is in what does your conscience dictate; what can you live with and are you susceptible to the con, to the manipulative appeal to your self-interests, and then are you concerned for only immediate individual gain or instead looking at being responsible, including to future generations? Personally, I'd like to see honesty and compassion, responsibility and integrity be the standard for both parties and for all representatives - we the voters are the only ones that can force that to happen.
The Anti-Corporate GOP?
What happened to the party of business interests?
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
As political alliances go, few are more cemented in the public consciousness than the bond between the Republican Party and business. But, upon closer inspection, the GOP–big business relationship doesn't seem so cozy.
Take health-care reform. From the time the bill hit Congress, Republicans found themselves opposite big industry interests. From the drugmakers to the doctors to the insurers, every major player in the health-care battle declared themselves willing to work with Democrats to enact some variant on reform. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, were almost universally opposed. Health-care reform advocates eventually dug up a handful of Republican notables to support reform, and in a radio address, President Obama singled out four for special notice: former health and human services secretaries Louis Sullivan and Tommy Thompson and former Senate majority leaders Bill Frist and Bob Dole. But, as reported by The Washington Examiner's Timothy Carney, it turned out that each of those Republican defectors had direct financial connections to the health-care industry, either as lobbyists or corporate consultants. In other words, these were folks whose allegiances to industry trumped their allegiances to their political party.
Nor is the health-care fight an outlier. Scan the big legislative battles of the past year or those on the horizon, and you start to see a pattern: the Republican Party on one side, entrenched big-business interests on the other.
On cap-and-trade, the stimulus, the bank and auto bailouts, and financial regulation, Republicans face, or have faced, substantial opposition from parts of the corporate community. Much of what's happening can be traced to the party's current identity crisis: without strong leadership to hold together various representatives, interests, and constituents, personal squabbles that might otherwise have been quelled are allowed to fester. At the same time, the party's nascent populism is surging to the surface, resulting in a more reactionary outlook.
That's souring relationships on the Hill. Wisconson Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the House's most economically conservative members, says that he's talking tougher with corporations than ever before. The problem, he argues, is that industry has drifted away from its support of free enterprise. "As long as big business was defending free markets, we didn't have a problem," he says. The trend now is for individual businesses and industry groups to push for regulation that is structured in such a way that they come out ahead—or make competitors worse off.
Wal-Mart's foray into the health-care debate is a prime example: The retail giant, once assailed by liberals for its stingy benefits, came out this summer in favor of an employer mandate to provide health insurance. The announcement made for good PR, but it was also strategically savvy: a mandate would raise retail competitor Target's health-care costs. The move put Wal-Mart in the GOP's sights. One top Republican legislator, who declined to be named because the conversation was private, recalled having "harsh words" with top Wal-Mart officials after its embrace of the mandate.
In the Senate, South Carolina's Jim DeMint accuses PhRMA, the D.C. lobbying powerhouse that represents the pharmaceutical industry, of a similar brand of self-serving deal-making. "PhRMA is infamous for sitting down and doing business. As long as they get their drugs sold, they'll support just about any policy." And sure enough, PhRMA reportedly cut a deal with the White House in which the organization promised to support reform provided Democrats agreed to limit the financial damage it could do to drug makers' profit margins. DeMint has also taken the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to task for its support of the recent fiscal-stimulus package, writing an April op-ed in The Washington Times declaring that, for the Republican Party to succeed, it must realize that its "true allegiance is not to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but to free markets."
Ryan and DeMint believe that the Republican Party bears the blame for the current state of affairs. While in power, Republicans became too used to making bargains with business, such as the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which provided the pharmaceutical industry with a windfall at taxpayers' expense. As a result, the party got "caught up in trying to win different industries by doing something for them," says DeMint. Now "established firms are used to cutting deals with the party in power."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss