I’ve now watched good portions of both political conventions and have decided to vote for Michele for president and Jill for VP.
Both parties say they want to strengthen the middle class, though the Republicans seem far more committed to the wealthy and still seem to cling on to Reagan’s old “trickle down” rationalization. They seem to me to be very short sighted, understanding little in the past and envisioning nothing beyond the next couple of years. They give no clue that we no longer live in the 19th century.
The Democrats raised a far broader range of issues, just as the faces in the convention represented a far broader range of the American populace, and they are certainly interested in long range thinking. They rightly point to such successes as the bailout of the auto industry but there seems to be no clear critique of the damage done by Wall Street and the bankers, all of whom have profited very nicely during the last few years.
Missing from both conventions, as usual, was one of the Bible’s central economic concerns: protecting and aiding the poor. The Republicans assume loose change will trickle down from the wealthy and the Democrats assume it will trickle down from the middle class. In terms of actual accomplishments over the last few decades, my impression is that Democrats have taken more concrete steps to aid the poor, though I cannot see that it has added up to much yet. So, from the perspective of the poor, there seems to be little difference.
This much does seem clear to me, though: The Far Right is opposed to all biblical measures of the goodness of a society, choosing instead the barbarians love of the Law of the Jungle, survival of the fittest. The poor, of course, are never among the fittest when competing with multi-billion dollar companies.