Understanding the Democrats

English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010

 

 

 

Every survey I’ve seen in the past decade or two indicates that most women consider themselves Democrats politically. Likewise, every survey I’ve seen in the past couple decades indicates that most men consider themselves Republicans, politically. Nobody should make the huge leap to argue that I am saying all women are Democrats and all men are Republican, or that Democratic men are somehow less manly. But I know some will. It’s inevitable.

 

Still, I do think some psychologic conclusions can be reached through these facts that will allow us to understand each other a little bit better where we disagree. And if you understand your political opponent more I’d like to think you are more likely to be able to find common ground.

 

Women crave security. Men crave independence. There. I’m done. These two statements sum up why Democrats and Republicans fight so much. If you don’t quite get it…allow me to explain.

 

In spite of Women’s Liberation, increasing freedom and less male dominance in the past 40-50 years woman still through nurture and nature have a strong desire for security. They don’t want to be fearful. They are averse to risk. Financial security is far more important to women than it is to men. The security of affection is stronger in women. A warm blanket to snuggle under on the couch while watching TV is cliche`. Knowing this, is it any wonder more women identify with the Democratic party? The Dems are the ones who want to provide you with everything you could possibly need, including…these days…cell phones.

 

Romney

Mitt Romney 

 

Also, with this in mind, it’s not surprising that President Barack Obama has been leading in polls over Mitt Romney among all women, (…at least until recently. More on this in a moment.) while Romney has been leading Obama among married women. Married women have far more security in their personal lives and have less of a need for security from the government. The converse can be said of single women.

 

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

Barack Obama 

 

If women crave security, what is it that most men desire? Men desire independence. Men don’t want to be told what to do. Men want to be men. I realize that I’m falling back on cliche` for some of this. But ultimately I only know what I know and no more. It’s instructive to realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Men and women are different, no matter how much Democrats want to insinuate that they aren’t. And men are more comfortable with risk than are women. Let’s face it, some men crave risk more than they crave independence  And at least since the time of Ronald Reagan and possibly as far back as Barry Goldwater the Republicans have rallied under the banner of less government and more freedom (also known as “risk” in many aspects of life) and independence. For men, it’s as if the GOP were some tall, leggy blonde in a tight sweater constantly winking at them. It’s too hard to resist the lure of freedom and independence…and risk.

 

So what’s wrong with women and Democrats seeking security while men and Republicans seek independence? Can’t we co-exist under such dissimilar desires? The answer is no because if you desire security then you desire someone giving you that security; because to provide that security yourself would require independence, and risk. And if you only get security from someone else, you give up some independence. When you’re single as a man or woman you have freedom. You can have drinks, dinner or sleep with whoever you want. When your married you can’t…or at least shouldn’t. Being single you have more independence. Being married you have more security. It’s the same in politics or government. So by desiring security through government Democrats are telling Republicans, and most men, to relinquish some independence. They’re telling single men to strap on the old ball and chain. Something men and Republicans are reluctant to do. It’s not in our DNA.

 

As it turns out President Obama is beginning to lose the argument for security. In polls released today by USA Today Romney has moved up into a tie with President Obama among women in the ten swing states that will determine our nation’s next President.

 

Romney and Obama tied amongst women 3 weeks before election.

 

It appears our nation’s women are beginning to understand that a better job, and better economy provide better security than can Obama’s government. Certainly, I agree.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

Call us for effective, affordable marketing

 

Related articles

 

October 15, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Understanding the Democrats

Think I’m Conservative? Your Wrong. I’m American.

 

English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010

 

What follows comes in response to a comment from my wife. She’s a Democrat, as is her mother. My VERY Democratic in-laws are not on Facebook, Twitter or any other Social Media; but members of their and our extended family are. My wife told me that my Mother-in-law was complaining that “I talk about President Obama like he’s a dog” on Social Media posts (obviously getting feedback from the extended family). Well, I would maintain that I talk about the President and other Democrats in regard to the issues, and not as a dog. But this revelation got me thinking it might be time to clarify my position and remove the “hardcore” label from my reputation.

 

Conservatives are Pro-Life and want to ban abortion. Right?

 

I’m Pro-choice. Like half of all Americans. I am in favor of an adult women being able to end a pregnancy should she choose to do so with little intervention or regulation from government.

 

Clarification

 

I am not in favor of any adult woman taking a life. In my mind it’s as simple as determining when life begins. I’ve often said its absurd to say that a wiggling, crying baby JUST removed from their mother’s womb is a life but 60 seconds earlier it wasn’t. That is why I support the Republican position restricting abortion. Life begins either at birth, at conception or somewhere in between. And as I’ve already said the idea that it doesn’t begin some time prior to birth following a nine-month pregnancy is ridiculous. In my mind NEARLY as ridiculous is the concept that life begins at conception. Whatever THAT is that remains as small as a finger nail at least 2 months into a normal, health pregnancy I wouldn’t call it human life.

 

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence claims the God-given Right to Life. So once Life is established and viable some time in the womb, at that point the woman’s right to abort should end. Prior to that point the woman’s right’s are paramount. Hardly a Conservative position.

 

Conservatives oppose higher taxes

 

This current election cycle is not unlike past ones. It’s just so much more clear the difference in tax policy between Barack Obama

 

Official photographic portrait of US President...

 

and Mitt Romney.

 

Mitt Romney

 

Obama has stated repeatedly, and even staked his election, on the premise that taxes need to be raised for people making $250,000-a-year or more. Romney wants to lower taxes and eliminate loop holes. I absolutely don’t agree with Obama’s policy. Romney’s is much more to my liking and belief system.

 

Clarification

 

I think wealthy people could and should pay more in taxes. I also believe the lower 47% of Americans who pay nothing in Federal Income taxes could and should pay something. Anything. But I absolutely don’t want any taxes raised on anybody until after our Federal and local governments learn to live within their means. They need to quit spending money they don’t have. Since that doesn’t appear to be happening any time soon whether we be under Republican or Democrat rule I stand with the Republican stand opposing higher taxes.

 

Conservatives support gun right

 

The National Rifle Association has always maintained a position opposing any restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms. The Republican position seldom drifts far from that same position. Democrats platform calls for respect for the 2nd Amendment, but also calls for regulations requiring background checks, banning assault weapons  and “eliminating the gun-show-loophole” that allow guns to fall into the hands of those irresponsible law-breaking few”. Actually reality is that Democrats anti-gun positions are far more prominent outside their party’s platform.

 

Clarification

 

I see no need for hand guns. They are only used for killing people. Nothing else. I’ve never owned one and I never will. Studies have repeatedly shown that if you own a hand gun you substantially increase your likelihood of dying or having someone in your household die from gun violence. I wouldn’t oppose legislation opposing handguns. What’s that do to my Conservative credentials?

 

I oppose Democrats opposition to “assault” weapons. I oppose this simply because defining an assault weapon and what exactly would be banned is too unclear and impossible to enforce. By some definitions my 35-year-old automatic 22-caliber rifle is an assault weapon, because it’s automatic. Some say my manual, pump 12-gauge shotgun is an assault weapon…because its a shotgun.

 

My position is closer to the Democrats written platform, than it is to Republicans. But in the real world of legislative politics its closer to Republicans.

 

Conservatives oppose gay marriage

 

Democrats are in favor of it, including our President and Vice-President. In Washington State polls indicate my state will become the first in the Union to legalize Gay Marriage by popular vote.

 

Clarification

 

On this one I am 100% behind the Republican party position. Under most state’s laws as they have existed a gay man can marry anyone I can marry and is restricted from marrying anyone that I’m restricted from marrying. So where is the discrimination? And the argument that people ought to be able to marry who they love is absurd and childishly naive. Should I be able to marry my sister (if I had a sister) and commit incest with her just because I love her? No. Should I be able to marry a woman who I love if I’m already married to another woman I love? That’s called bigamy. And while such marital practices are legal in other parts of the world, our country and society has deemed it illegal. So, no. Should I be able to marry a girl of 12 years of age? What if she and her parents consent? No. The age-of-consent is different in different states all over the country proving THAT age is arbitrary and thus capricious. And if Gay Marriage is made legal all these other restrictions on marriage MUST also be removed in order to not discriminate and allow people to marry whomever they love. Is that what our society wants? On this issue I pass the Conservative test.

 

Conservatives are racist. Right?

 

Of course the above statement is wrong, and divisive. But unfortunately those few remaining Americans who harbor hateful racist viewpoints toward minorities find their political home in the Republican party far more often than in the Democratic party. Fortunately there aren’t many of them; which is a good thing for lots of reasons including the fact that however few there are they stain the GOP too much already.

 

Clarification

 

I am not a racist. My black wife of 25 years and our three children will back me up on this one. But, I detest group thought over individualism. And unfortunately the Democratic party is all about labeling and classifying people based on race, age, religion, disability, sexual preference, etc. It’s not something I understand. For instance when “Hate-Crimes” legislation became law I couldn’t, and still can’t, understand why an assault on a black man for bigoted reasons was any worse than an assault of equal severity against a white man or woman. An assault is an assault. It’s illegal. It should be punished.

 

Democrats seem to think that a white person even mentioning race or religion makes them hateful racists. On CNN today I saw Carol Costello looked pained and distressed and comment accordingly because Mitt Romney was seen on a video joking he might stand a better chance of winning were he Latino. Bad joke? Ya. Factually questionable? Certainly. Racist? Puhleeeez!

 

Conservatives are Hawks and believe in war. 

 

Democrats have continually tried to de-fund the military and Republicans have continually tried to keep funding as-is or increase it. Democrats, including Barack Obama, want us out of Afghanistan and never wanted us in Iraq. Republicans support or supported both wars and belief we should only leave Afghanistan when there is peace or when the Afghan government can stand on its own.

 

Clarification

 

Like most Americans, and Democrats in Congress, I supported the interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Democrats I want them out…yesterday. Our presence in Iraq should have ended long before it did. I am glad that President Obama followed George W. Bush’s withdrawal plan and got almost all of our troops out of that troublesome nation. To me, Afghanistan makes no sense. It serves no strategic or military or political purpose to have Americans continue to fight and die in that backwards far-away land. Obama already uses drones continually in Pakistan and Yemen to hit terrorist/enemy targets. I want to know why he can’t pull all of our troops out of harms way, park an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean and bomb the crap out of the Taliban or El Qaeda whenever they pop their heads into the open. But my hawkishness ends when no beneficial purpose remains for the killing.

 

What probably defines me as a Conservative and Republican more than anything else is the Social Nanny-State mentality Democrats have fully embraced. It seems to me that by wanting to do more and more for each individual and group of individuals from cradle to grave Democrats sell-short the capabilities of us all. We’re all so much more capable than they seem to want to give us credit for. When you continually grow government for the purpose of taking care of its citizens Thomas Jefferson, among others, had a word for that. He called it tyranny. And so do I. The safety net for our truly most needy must and will always be there. But it’s not our governments job to ensure that we all have the same size house, television, car, or bank account.

 

So there you have it. I’ve probably disappointed some of my more Conservative friends. And I seriously doubt I’ve newly endeared myself with my more Liberal friends, most of whom stopped listening to me long ago. But it bothered me to be labelled a hardcore Conservative for no other reason than I knew it not to be true. I am hardcore vocal for what I believe in. And I will continue to be so.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

September 18, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 2 Comments

Democrats Have Become Extremists

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral...

Answer this for me: were socialists or even communists able to take over our country and run the United States of America the way they want it run and the way that eliminates all the evil corporate greed and power-hungry capitalists, what would happen to all the bad guys? What would happen to those money and power-hungry folks who oppress the people and get no joy out of life unless they’ve stepped on the neck of some poor working man?

Would they all be put in jail? Would they all change their ways? Would harmony reign over this wonderful land with all people living in the same modest homes, eating the same modest meals, riding in the same ecological buses and trains?

If you answered “Yes”, your are dismissed. You can leave now because you are maddeningly naive and incapable of intelligent thought.

If you’re still with me…the answer to the above repeated questions is that all the ambitious high productivity, high income, corporate leaders in our society would not go anywhere. They would stay exactly where they are enjoying the same type of lavish lifestyle they currently have earned. Read George Orwell’s “Animal Farm“.

Cover of "Animal Farm: Centennial Edition...

Cover of Animal Farm: Centennial Edition

Remember how the pigs took over the farm and when questioned about their authority and lack of equal treatment the lead pig arrogantly said “Some of us are more equal than others.”. The point they were making is even in a socialist society where everyone is supposed to be treated equally, they aren’t. Ultimately, you have leaders and you have those they lead. Those that lead society don’t change because of the type of government structure, or economic system. The human qualities that drive someone to the top and to a position of leadership and high income, in most cases, will drive them to the top in a socialist or communist system to. You will still have rich and poor. Only in a socialist system you’ll have more poor and the gap separating those on top from those on the bottom will be wider.

How do I know this? Just look at the Communist regimes of the 20th Century. Look at China today. China has fabulous wealth for some of its people. They all happen to reside in the more Capitalistic big cities of China. But outside of Beijing, and Hong Kong there is staggering poverty. China’s a 19th Century agrarian society outside the big cities.

Hong Kong Slums

Hong Kong Slums (Photo credit: Ray Devlin)

America seems as divided now as ever. I was only a small child in the 1960s and have no personal memory of it. It’s safe to say THAT time was worse. But since the 1960s no time has seen such a complete divide in where American people now look at each other.

And I think the problem is the Democratic party has been taken over by radical, extremist and the sooner the more moderate voices recognize this fact the sooner we can expect our government to serve our needs and their responsibilities. Because now, nothing is being done.

Democrats adopted a platform at their National Convention in Charlotte that contained no mention of God or of a Divine power for the first time in the party’s history. Realizing the massive political error this represented those in charge of the party (i.e. President Obama) pushed through a change in wording amendment to the platform that as you can see in this video was not what the majority of Democrats wanted:

Repeated surveys show only 5-10% of Americans call themselves either atheist or agnostic. But it seems they wield considerable influence in the Democratic party.

Gay marriage has been on the ballots in elections in 22 states nationwide. It’s lost every single time. And yet, the Democratic Party has it in their platform that they support Gay marriage. Pro Gay marriage extremists wield considerable influence in the Democratic Party.

American’s overwhelmingly agree that business owners and entrepreneurs “built it themselves”, and are responsible for creating and running their own companies. But DNC speakers included Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren who started the argument which President Obama carried to national attention by disputing the idea that business owners are in fact harder working, and at times smarter than others, and that they did build it themselves. And yet anti-business, pro-government extremists wield considerable influence in the Democratic Party.

Half of everyone in America is below average in intelligence. That’s a mathematical fact. We are not all equal in intelligence. And I believe, as do many others, that business owners, for the most part, come from the population occupying the upper half of the intelligence scale.

 

Most Americans oppose the Occupy Wall Street movement according to every poll ever taken on the subject. Not our President, or many Democrats. Of the mere 37% who said they support the anti-business group 64% say their Democrats. Only 14% say they’re Republicans. And so Occupy Wall Street protesters wield a considerable amount of influence in the Democratic Party.

The Democrats are the Pro-Choice party and adopted a plank on their platform that states their support for the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court Ruling allowing unlimited abortion on demand. And what’s even worse is now Democrats say that all contraceptives need to be provided to all women for free. Here’s the problem: most Americans are Pro-Life. According to a May 2012 Gallup poll 51% of us identify ourselves as Pro-Life. Or put another way, 51% believe in protecting the life of the human being who has not yet been born. The same poll shows that the fewest number of Americans ever identify themselves as Pro-Choice.

The Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for turning America against them on the abortion issue. Why? Extremism. Like I said. Extremists have taken over America’s oldest political party. Rather than accept or negotiate reasonable limits on abortion Democrats have adopted the all-or-nothing approach. A huge percentage of Americans don’t believe in late-term abortions. But Democrats fight to keep it legal everywhere it’s challenged. A majority of Americans believe in parental notification should a minor want an abortion. Democrats oppose even that. And four times while in the Illinois legislature Barack Obama voted to allow doctors to kill babies that survived unsuccessful abortions. Most Americans not only oppose this procedure, most Americans are appalled by such a practice. And yet pro-abortion extremists wield considerable influence in the Democratic Party.

And in 2008 Democrats nominated, and Americans elected a U.S. Senator with the most extreme Liberal voting record in the entire upper chamber of our Congress. And Barack Obama wields a considerable amount of influence in the Democratic Party.

Like I said. Extremist. Here’s hoping the more moderate voices grow a spine and start shouting down the far-left influences within the oldest Political Party in the country so that it more closely resembles the reasonable values of those who came before like Kennedy, Truman, Jefferson, et al. They can do it November 6th.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

September 8, 2012
Categories: Business, National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Democrats Have Become Extremists

Co-opted Republican Ideals and Accomplishments.

This photo is from the Time 100 Gala - read ho...

Elizabeth Warren

In watching the great Native American leader (NOT) Elizabeth Warren speaking at the Democratic National Convention I heard a statement that caused me to think and say out loud, “What a lie!”. Actually, there were several. But the one of which I write came at a time when she was reciting a list of accomplishments she claimed to be Democratic Party accomplishments. On behalf of Democrats she took credit for Child Labor Laws in the U.S.

It seems Ms. Warren not only has challenges in telling the truth about her ancestry, having secured employment at Harvard University by claiming Native American ancestry that didn’t really exist; but now the Massachusetts Senate candidate needs American History lessons too.

English: "Glassworks. Midnight. Location:...

Republican Teddy Roosevelt is the single individual most responsible for bringing to national attention the plight of child workers as well as other abuses of labor. Twenty times while in the New York Legislature he championed different legislation addressing child labor. The National Child Labor Committee was created in 1904 during his Presidency. And Roosevelt’s hand chosen successor, President William Howard Taft signed into law the act creating the United States Children’s Bureau in the Federal Department of Labor. All this work laying the groundwork for the eventual passing of the Keating-Owen Act in 1916 prohibiting the buying or selling of goods manufactured or processed by child labor.

Anyone paying attention knows this isn’t the first time the Democratic Party has co-opted Republican ideas and accomplishments and claimed them as their own.

Democrats are always presenting themselves as the sole reason for the freedom and civil rights enjoyed in our country today by blacks and other minorities. Such false claims ignore the fact that the Civil War was fought almost entirely over the issue of slavery and the election of

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...

Republican President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the first-ever Republican President. It was a party formulated out of the former Whig party and included abolishment of slavery as its primary plank in its platform. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made it real. The Presidential Proclamation was given Constitutional backing thanks to the Republican Party and the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

When President Lynden Johnson needed help passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act it wasn’t his fellow Democrats he turned to. Southern Democrats were blocking the legislation. Johnson got this and the Voting Rights Act passed through the support of Republicans in Congress. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Democrat James Eastland opposed the bill and wouldn’t give it a hearing in his Committee. Then after some parliamentary procedures, that would cause Harry Reid to turn his head, the bill was sent to the Senate floor for a vote but blocked by a Democratic filibuster. It was the Republicans who broke the filibuster, passing the most significant Civil Rights legislation since Republicans passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Years later after blacks had won their voting rights and many other rights in the segregated south it was Boston, Massachusetts, Liberal and Democratic Boston, Massachusetts, where the largest opposition to intra-racial freedom occurred. Boston is where the stiffest opposition to school desegregation busing took place.

There are other issues too.

Democrats are the champions of the environment, right?

Well it was Republican President Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Water Act into law in 1972.

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the U...

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the United States

Nixon also was responsible for THE major Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970 that greatly expanded the federal mandate by requiring comprehensive federal and state regulations for both stationary (industrial) pollution sources and mobile sources.

What about continued claims that Democrats are peace-loving and Republicans are war mongers? Really?

It was Nixon who opened China after 25 years of isolation, and three Democratic Administrations.

Nixon also negotiated the SALT treaty with the Soviet Union, creating the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty.

Republican Ronald Reagan negotiated with the evil empire and its last leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was because of Reagan’s leadership and under Republican President George H.W. Bush that the Soviet Union came crashing down without a shot, or a missile being fired after more than 70 years of reigning terror over Europe and Asia.

Democrats did none of this.

Is there more? Certainly. Ever heard of the G.I. Bill? The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, as it was formally called, was originally written by former National Republican Party Chairman Harry W. Colmery on the back of a napkin at the Mayflower Hotel in 1944. The bill was championed in the U.S. Senate by Republican Warren Atherton and Democrat Ernest McFarland. The G.I. Bill provided returning servicemen with low-cost mortgages, loans for starting businesses; paid for college tuition and more.

Why these facts demonstrating the Republican party’s compassion and leadership in matters of civil rights, environmentalism, peace and government benefit programs is not more widely known is a mystery. How can it be that the Democratic party has stolen credit for all these things and not been held accountable for having done so? I don’t know the answer. But I know to claim credit for something you didn’t do is a lie. And Americans don’t much like those who lie. Do we?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

September 6, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Co-opted Republican Ideals and Accomplishments.

Republicans Need to Talk with More Heart

It’s tough out there. It’s tough just about everywhere.

This will be one of those blogs my wife wishes I wouldn’t write because I’ll reveal far too much personal feelings and personal information.

This Obama recession just keeps dragging on. Now we have the buttressing good news of declining gas prices which are made worse by the declining oil prices which is caused by declining economic forecasts. Economists say things could be getting worse…again. But then again…we could just be early with the annual Post-Memorial Day decline of oil and gas prices.

Are you struggling right now financially? I don’t talk to anyone these days who isn’t. It seems a lot of people are like my family…making a steady average to above average income…less than in years past but definitely average or above average…not saving anything…meeting all bills, but just barely…all while living humbly (at least humbly compared to the past 20 years). Things around the house that break, stay broken, at least for a while. We have a desire to help our adult kids, but not the means, other than a roof over their heads, which they reject. And it’s been this way for 2-3 years now.

I have one huge fear. No, not that I or someone in my family gets sick. But now that I mention it…that gives me chills too. Actually my biggest fear is that Barrack Obamawins re-election six short months from now.

Barack Obama

It’s not hard to argue that Obama is the most Progressive/Liberal President in U.S. history. And if he’s not he’s a close second, at least on domestic matters to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. 

And what do they have in common? Both inherited serious economic problems and prolonged them through their own economic policies.

In June 1933 FDR signed into law a series of bills that were anti-competition, like the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and pro-union measures, like Obama’s pro-union agenda including suing Boeing for having the audacity of locating a plant in a right-to-work state, thereby raising wages to artificially high levels and prices for goods in eleven key industries 25-percent higher than they otherwise would have been.

Such Government control has never been shown to work on a large economy effectively. Or as Winston Churchill said when assessing socialism’s inherent virtue, “the equal sharing of miseries.”.

Question: Can you name one government social program that makes you rich? How about one that makes you reasonably well-off? How about one that sustains you at average life-style levels? You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Government entitlement programs give you enough food and shelter and medicine in order to survive; never to thrive. So, with more people dependent on government for subsistence fewer people are eligible for a life of thriving success. The Heritage Foundations 2012 Index of Government Dependence showed more Americans dependent on government for subsistence than ever before.

Which leads me to the question: Has government made it too easy to rely on pay-outs for assistance. Rather than helping the truly needy, are we not creating more needy by creating dependence?

With unemployment benefits now extended 99 weeks in most circumstances dependence on that weekly government check is paramount. How can a teacher who’s been unemployed for nearly two years still be considered a teacher? Isn’t it obvious that if you can’t find employment in your field after two years you are no longer in THAT field? I think its obvious that too many people refuse employment or to look for employment in whatever job they can land in order to hold out for employment in their chosen field, subsisting ever so precariously on government assistance, until that job materializes and not coincidentally after their skills have diminished through nearly 2 years of unemployment.

Republicans consistently miss the boat on winning the support of these people and others who display sympathy for such folks. Republicans don’t talk enough about how they can help the poor and the lower middle-class by expressing the obvious: we have a better plan. How many people would prefer a government check that barely meets their needs over a paycheck no matter what the source for the paycheck?

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...

Mitt Romney can be our next President. But he has to show the compassion for the millions of those who are lost in this meager “recovery” or barely surviving. He can do it by simply emphasizing the obvious. Jobs are better than social programs. And he can do it by better demonstrating the compassion that non-thinking independents and Democrats like most. A sense of sympathy and concern for the most down-and-out will go miles in pulling them from the clutches of the Democratic party.

The Democratic party does a far superior job of giving the poor hungry man a fish; but as every Republican knows the Dems do a far inferior job of teaching a man to fish. We wrote a parable on such a subject some years ago called: The Fisherman, the Hungry Man, and the Wise Man.

Those who are struggling is a long list that sadly seems to be growing longer. An about-face can be achieved by repeatedly emphasizing the words of John Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”, and instead emphasizing what can you do for yourself, your family and your country. Do what you need to do, and pretty soon you will be able to do what you want to do. The Republicans have historically been more vocal in support of “traditional values”. They now need to show how those “traditional values”, like a rising tide, can and will lift all boats.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

May 9, 2012
Categories: Business, National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Republicans Need to Talk with More Heart

Previous page Next Page »