Backward, Into the Future

Three contemporary definitions of the term "Political Conservative":
1. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
3. In politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order.

As indicated, it appears that the current Republican party adheres to this concept with unwavering certainty. Regression is their definition of progress. So let's venture back to the days of old, shall we? It might be good to return to the past. It might be, but it won't be because the right has decided to rewrite the past to fit their present.

The Republican party holds the name REAGAN as the banner of everything good. The torch that lights the way forward. The only problem with that is they don't hold his ideas, his understanding of the complexities of the economy of this country, in the same light. During one of his speeches in Georgia in 1985, he asked,  "Do you think millionaires ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver?"  He also said "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."  Sound familiar? Were he to say that today the present day Republicans would call him a socialist that wants to bring down the republic.

Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, calls the present day philosophy "an anti-tax jihad".  Forget the real numbers from those days.  During Reagan's 8 years in office, for 7 of those the top rate was higher than the current 35% and for 6 of those years it was above 50%.  Since 1997, the the average income of the top 400 richest has more than tripled while their tax obligations have decreased by 40%. Today, any one of these select 400 pay about 17% in federal income taxes (after deductions) while a person making $25,000.00 pays about 24%.  Are the Republicans yattering to return to the days of yore willing to go back to the tax rates of the past? Back to the real days of old? Oh God no.


Three contemporary definitions of "Political Liberal".
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


There are people out there (in more ways than one) that are saying by their support of certain presidential candidates that the way forward for this country is to turn back the clock to the days of old.  Just not the real days.  A business in trouble will not correct itself by not buying new inventory.  A successful business adapts to the reality of today.  As all societies change over time, so too should our government. To think that this country can excel with the policies of the past, while ignoring the truth of the past, is to ignore the advances made from the inception of this country to today.

Take the titles away from the definitions and choose. Which concept you would rather live with? Which world do you want your children left with? Where do you want to be next year?