I’m sorry but the ultimate goals are very different. When Gingrich (just today) proposes getting rid of the EPA, and the GOP generally comes down against any and all pollution regulations how can anyone say they have a commitment to the environment?
Again, the focus on the means. Do you think the EPA is the
only way to approach protecting the environment? Just because we disagree on the means doesn’t mean we disagree on the ends. Or do you think the GOP really wants poisonous streams and acid rain? That’s what they want?
When they’ve proposed doing away with the Department of Education since the '80’s, have recently come down on the side of For-Profit schools and seek to defund schools at every turn how can anyone say they have a commitment to education?
And again, a focus on the means. Many of us conservatives believe that the federal government should not be involved in education doesn’t mean we think that education is unimportant. Do you really think the GOP wants stupid, illiterate children? Or could it possibly be that the GOP think the needs of the education system are better served at the state and local level than at the federal level?
Note also that the federal government provides hardly any of the funding of education here in the US. Even if more $$$ were to translate to results (which it hasn’t and doesn’t) how does federal involvement create a better outcome? Elimination of the DofEducation would have hardly any impact on the state of education and in fact, would save us money. And many of us conservatives also think it would improve things, since it would get rid of many of the handcuffs state and local school districts are forced to wear.
When they GOP gets millions upon millions upon millions of dollars from hospitals and insurance companies and drug companies ($125,000 for every hour Congress was in session and that was back in 2008 I can’t imagine what it is now) to keep Americans wedded to crushing medical debt and inferior if not non-existent care how can anyone say they have a commitment to affordable health care?
Do you really think the GOP
wants people to have crushing medical debt? So instead of crushing personal debt we should have crushing public debt instead? Applying your argument, the Democrats want “to keep Americans wedded to crushing [public] debt and inferior if non-existent care how can anyone say they have a commitment to affordable health care?”
The point is that the GOP believes as much in affordable health care, but they completely disagree with a federal solution. In fact, many of us conservatives think that getting the government out of the way will bring down prices and improve quality and outcomes. Mandates–those government imposed restrictions–drive up costs. Disproportionate lawsuit rewards–those that are government imposed, sanctioned, or tolerated–drive up costs. Less government as a means, which is what the GOP proposes, we think can lead to the same ends.
But of course, the left rejects those means as stupid or unfair, and then erroneously concludes that our ends are just as stupid or unfair. Wrong conclusion.
It’s not ridiculous, they’ve chosen to stand firmly against the middle class and the American people in general and they demonstrate it at every opportunity.
You keep focusing on the means. If we disagree with your means, we must be cruel and heartless. I don’t think the Democrats are evil, I just think their policies are stupid and destructive. I could say the Democrats have “chosen to stand firmly against the middle class and the American people in general and they demonstrate it at every opportunity,” but that would mean I’ve fallen into the same trap. I think the Democrats are misguided in their attempts, but I do think their attempts are sincere. Yet it seems that the left can’t extend the same courtesy to the right. Since you disagree with the means, you think our ends are just as wrong.
Sigh.
