When ever liberals express an interest in giving the disadvantaged a leg-up, why do conservatives regularly presume that it is hogwash being for the unwashed who are unambitious, and completely reliant on the government, and then add that liberals are implying that conservatives have no compassion? Other than perhaps unthinking extremists, the prevailing liberal slant on things is that the business world, particularly now, is primarily concerned with the bottom line and any costs that shrink the line is bad for business. Obviously — and other than peripheral values — a corporation or even a small business abhors its share of the payroll tax, increasing minimum wage, and higher taxes. This would be logical but for the reliance business has upon the endurance and viability of consumers. It does, after all, take a village to make a business.
Still, why does a conservative of non-commercial values, necessarily side with the faithful of unchecked capitalism? Why should a housewife who is pro-life usually side with these harsh bread and butter issues? Does she not care for the economic security of the household, does she not smile on her children and take care of them so they do not feel the pressures of going without? In attending church does she not join in prayer for the children here and of the world suffering from disease and hunger? Does she not cry for the child of the ghetto shot down in a gang war?
Could it be that she also believes, because all her needs are met by her own hand and that of her spouse, that this is magically possible for others by getting off their arses? Could it be that she believes that a ghetto matriarch, trying to hold a family together, is on an even plane with her and therefore needs no assistance if this woman just had the ambition to take on another job to boost the family budget but ignoring the devastation that would have on caring for the children at home? Could it be that because this caring housewife has a spouse who earns a living wage that with gusto meets the needs of his family that all wage earners, given their willingness, are financially equipped, at least in relative terms, to do the same for their families? If her answer is a tenuous yes, could it be that this caring housewife will have to admit to C’est la Vie! — there are winners and losers for whom the latter has no village.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 7, 2004.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com