GOP lacks recognition for effort
Published: Thursday, September 20, 2012
Updated: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:09
This election year, you might hear a few overconfident conservatives make the claim that because the Obama administration has record numbers of people on SNAP (food stamps) and other welfare benefits, Romney has the election all tied up.
Unfortunately, history is all but on the side of the Republican Party in this respect.
For the Democrats, a high number of welfare recipients are vital for a high voter turnout among the poor.
Indeed, the Democratic Party benefits much from George Bernard Shaw’s old adage, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
This axiom helped Franklin Roosevelt be elected three times.
Mind you, Shaw knew something about wealth redistribution – he was a Fabian Socialist.
On a related note, it occurs to me that the politics of wealth redistribution is seen in a charitable, benevolent way.
Indeed many, without much thought, adhere to the age-old notion that the Democratic Party is one of selfless charity and philanthropy, and the Republican Party is one that leaves the poor out to dry.
What is so charitable about taking others’ money and giving it away? Can charity be called charity if it’s not from your own pocket? The answers are, respectively, “nothing” and “no.”
Many liberals see the hasty expansion of the welfare state as a noble deed, and the term “welfare state” as a golden trophy about which any Democrat should boast.
For instance, when Obama dulled the teeth of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 by removing the work requirements for government handouts, many liberals were quick to jump to his defense.
Obama, neglecting his much-parroted slogan, “forward,” took a step backward on much-needed welfare reform. This sort of stance on welfare serves only to infantilize the impoverished.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a long history of philanthropy taken to somewhat of an extreme. For example, lovers of the free market, Ronald Reagan and economist Adam Smith, donated vast amounts of their own wealth to charity.
Former Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, whom liberals wrongfully perceive as some corrupt, nefarious crook of a businessman, gave much of his extensive collection of paintings to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.
It is important to note that the National Gallery of Art was not founded by the government, but by Mellon’s own pockets, showing that private charity is the means by which the impoverished may endeavor to succeed, without the risk of dependency.
Not only is the Democratic Party a party lacking compassion, it is one which creates a disgraceful reliance on government.
It is charitable, private contributions which are actually effective in uplifting the poor. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party, for its false charity, gets all the credit – and the votes.