Left Of Center

I made mention here of what I thought it means to be Republican. Thinking about this further driving home in the rain this afternoon, I think that the political right's position is that they should be able to gather/control as much wealth as they possible can (via legal means). But what is wealth? The only things I can think of are equity from others (wage labor), and natural resources.

Thus, we should be allowed to do so, and the government should not meddle with our rights to do so. When the government does, this is what I referred to as restricting choice. No government is the Republican mantra. Period...except for waging war. Waging war, as we've seen it applied in our lifetimes, is seemingly used to extract/gather/control other people's wealth or to protect our concentrations of wealth. So the right says "no" to government economic intervention (no taxes, free markets, no regulations, unrestricted land use) but "yes" to bombing the shit out of brown people: Panamanians, Libyans, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Somalis, and Afganis.

Almost everything I think Republicans despise boils down to limiting their ability to choose. Drill ANWR because to not do so prevents the ability to choose to extract these resources in favor of others. Stop illegal immigration, not because we shouldn't use them to extract surplus value from their cheap labor, but because they suck from the public teat. Don't tax because to do so prevents the ability to use wealth as we see fit. It is the contributions of the few concentrated wealth owners who's achievements and accomplishments allow our society as a whole to be bettered. And Joe Plumbers like this because they either envy a larger wealth pie slice for themselves or they like the right's position on bombing brown people military security.

What I can't figure out, though, is how evangelicals have worked their way into this crowd when all they do is espouse a viewpoint of restricting choice (the One Way Only Crowd). No choice on abortion, on gay marriage, on teaching evolution...I have to think about this further...



But then, I think of the left. Here is an idea that people are obliged to share wealth and that society is bettered when wealth inequities are minimized. Here, government has the responsibility to help equalize access to resources...and perhaps to provide a minimum to all people.

When I look around, we follow many, many tenants of this philosophy. Progressive taxation instead of a flat tax. Those who have more are progressively taxed more as they have a greater access to resources. There are not many people who really, really think progressive taxation is a terrible thing -- they simply don't like the rates. And driving. Everyone from Big Joe Stud all the way down to little Sam Sausage (to mock Mrs. Palin) has equal access to the roadways, no matter who does or who doesn't own shit. All you gotta have is a car, and you don't even have to own it to drive.

Is it because I now have access to a greater slice of the wealth pie that I decided to take on voluntary collective self-restriction and now espouse the view of the left? I don't know. I am much more receptive to that philosophy now...and I wonder, would I still be a Republican if I still didn't have shit as before? What caused me to change? Am I suddenly a left wing radical ACLU ACORN anti-corporation anti-globalism Marxist commie liberal?

Hardly. No, Dubya certainly cemented my shift with these stupid fucking voluntary wars, but as I mentioned here, Republicans are roadblocks on everything I take issue with on my Franklin Monologues: unfettered suburban sprawl, CAFE standards, bad urban design, wanton consumerism, alternative energies, energy policy, air pollution, and local agriculture.

I think that as wealth is shared and decisions are made cooperatively there can be tremendous potential for error. I am not so far left as to assume we can ignore human variability...it is in this facet that collectivism fails miserably, IMO. So perhaps it's fair to say I fall to the left of center.