Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Monday, October 08, 2007

Fertile Gardens

Often you hear the Republican right wing talking about how Democrats are the nanny party. Basically this means Democrats want to take care of the poor, improve health care for everyone, nurture, tend to basic needs of more than their own families. Democrats have many diverse ways they believe this should be done, but pretty much are in agreement that any government is there to help its citizens live better lives. Therefore, the Nanny Party isn't a bad metaphor for Democrats-- even if it's not meant to be a compliment.

Many Democrats believe in paying as they go for what they want; so basically the Nanny Party wants taxes to cover services. You can't nurture people if you are building debt on their backs. To help people, it has to be real help, not placebos and it's worth paying for the providing of it. Some, mostly in the right, would say taxes never nurture anybody; but you have to look at the reality of what that some do-- government will tax and it will put those funds out there one way or another. Just who is getting the money might differ. Debt can be acquired for awhile, but the day comes when it can't be extended farther; then the piper will be paid.

What Republicans don't like to talk about is they are the Daddy Party. It's not what they like to think about themselves as being; but if you look at what they seek in a presidential candidate, I think you can see it. They want someone who can protect them. Someone who promises to take care of the bad guys.

Democrats elect policy wonks, people who know issues up one side and down the other, and charisma is secondary to policy (you can see it in our past candidates, who are not exactly noted for their charisma-- John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis). For most Democrats, charisma is not enough. Barack Obama is running into that already. It might seem Bill Clinton didn't fit this profile given his charisma, but he did fit it. He is the ultimate policy wonk with an additional aspect of charisma, but his charisma didn't get him the nomination. It never does for Democrats.

Democrats don't want a leader who dictates everything to them. They look for consensus, town hall style governing-- where Republicans go the other way. The Republican right ridicules the idea of caring about a poll. They are proud of a president who doesn't give a fig about what the people want.

Why is this? The answer is because Republicans want a Daddy. Daddy can protect them. He knows best and governs them as they believe their god does-- with a rigid will. It is why so many of them trusted George Bush to dismantle parts of the Constitution, why they okayed secret prisons, and still many in that group believe torture, even when it doesn't work, is okay. If we cannot trust Daddy, who can we trust?

I think some of how this comes about is because of the version of spiritual belief that governs many in the core of the religious right, who elected and still support George bush. In general, the heart of the Republican party is used to a church going mentality where God will take care of them. A pastor tells them what is right to do. They don't even have to take responsibility for being good. God makes them good. When they fail, God forgives them if they ask for it. I suspect their concept of faith carries over into who they select for a leader.

Republicans ridicule Democrats for that need for consensus, concern for poll results because Republicans aren't looking for any of that. They want a godlike leader who will rule wisely and assure their safe and good lives. I believe that kind of ground, especially when combined with religious zeal is one that grows fascism.

Although the nanny state can lead to socialism or communism, where the nanny is supposed to do what the employer ordered, it's less prone to dictatorships than the daddy state. Either, however, can lead to dictatorships when the people abdicate responsibility for their own governance and grow to wanting something for nothing.

These garden pictures were taken when I walked outside to get colored leaf photos. Conditions were perfect to allow flowers to stay blooming-- no early freeze as we often have in mid-September. What was that gladiola doing blooming now? We never even had one bloom in that spot during the summer. Wow, what a beautiful rose bud! Love how the pampas grass shines in the sun.

While it's true garden photos are a lot prettier to post than pictures of politicians-- past or present, gardens also illustrate the consequences of their tending and conditions. They vividly illustrate what their care has been. Their consequences are a lot more immediate than some others in life where results take longer to show up.

In the first photo, the sheep, waiting for apples to be knocked out of the tree by the wind or me, represent us looking for someone else to take care of our needs, from the daddy to the nanny, at no cost, trusting promises that nobody can deliver without cost-- it only varies what it will be.

The last photo is of rose-hips along a gravel road. When the leaves are gone, the bright red rose-hips are revealed. Sometimes in life, it takes getting dross out of the way to see what is really beneath.

13 comments:

robin andrea said...

This is so interesting, rain. Your perceptions are sharp and profound. I was not raised with any religious instruction, which might explain my absolute distaste for the Republican perspective. I have never needed a "daddy" other than my dear sweet father. I understand the nanny perspective. I can not look away from a person in need, and I don't judge their personal state affairs, only hope to improve it. I don't really know if there is a balance or a solution to the disparate views of "daddy" and "nanny". I hope there is, but I despair that there isn't.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

This perspective of "nanny" and "daddy" makes me feel emotional. I hope essays like this makes people realize the truth. And that people will see the significance of the differences of our two parties on the path of our country.

Unknown said...

Wow. I kept wondering, as I read, how all these photos fit in with the nanny and daddy parties and then there it was. Brilliant commentary and beautiful photos, as always.

Ingineer66 said...

Wonderful post Rain, I have been too busy to comment, but I have a quick one. As for charismatic leaders Bill Clinton may have been a detail guy but charisma and Ross Perot are the reasons he got elected. As for Republicans Gerald Ford was a very detail oriented leader and he had negative charisma and was crucified by the media mostly because he was a republican during the time of Nixon and it was a popular thing to do.
And remember the republican candidate against Clinton the second time, Senator Bob Dole. He was a good leader who probably would have made a decent president, but apparently had no charisma until after the election when he hosted Saturday Night Live and then started doing Viagra Commercials. Turns out he was just made out to be an old fuddy duddy by the media who loved the charismatic Clinton.

One difference I see between the Daddy government from the Nanny government is the Daddy people want you to grow and take responsibility for yourself and take care of yourself and become productive members of society. The nanny folks seem to want you to be dependent on them so they have power over you. They want cradle to grave government responsibility instead of personal responsibility. Personally I don't mind a government safety net. But I don't want to depend on the government to live my life.

As for government ran health care. We have seen how the government runs the Veteran Administration Health care system. That is what we will have for all of us who are not rich enough to pay cash when the government takes over as a single payer system.

Rain Trueax said...

Thanks to everyone for your comments, as always, they mean a lot to me.

Ingineer, a good nanny wants the child to grow into independence. They don't want them to stay babies. And daddy is a word we usually use when we are babies. Daddies sometimes don't want their children to grow up; so either can keep the child unhealthily immature to keep their own power but it's not what you would want to see. I think democrats learned something from the Johnson years where the nanny thinking ran amok and caused a lot of mistakes. But I then used to think the Republicans learned from Nixon too and it's apparent they just want another try at what Nixon set in motion but didn't carry through.

Actually the VA was improving until Bush got in and began to cut government programs to pay for his misbegotten war-- not to mention the huge increase in soldiers needing massive amounts of medical help. Veteran Hospitals did improve under the years of dual parties in control. If Clinton wins, it will be two more years before Americans turn to Republicans to control the Congress as they did under the first Clinton. In general power doesn't do a lot for citizens. I think Americans used to anyway like divided government to limit the mistakes.

The people who are most against government health care programs already have excellent insurance as part of their job packages. Go without awhile and see how you see the idea of government getting involved in improving health care. The only way it will work though is to cut out the insurance companies for their profits and you can bet neither party... so far.. will back that.

Rain Trueax said...

When Dole ran, it was against a popular incumbent president. A lot of people were angry at Republicans for the attempt at impeachment. I don't think it was the media that made the difference. Dole does seem like a good man but of course, his stand on issues would never be ones to which I would agree. You do have to vote for those who agree with what you believe should be done-- whether you like the other guy or not

Ingineer66 said...

You are right that I am against government take over because I have health insurance, but if my employer did not pay for part of my insurance I would go to Blue Cross or another company and get pay for my own major medical coverage. It is no different than the people that live in a flood zone without flood insurance and they want the government to pick up the tab to re-build their house or with a forest fire and no fire insurance or no car insurance. If you don't want to pay for insurance then you are gambling. And with no health insurance you are gambling with your life. And you still will get taken care of in the emergency room which is paid for by the rest of us that pay taxes or pay our hospital bills. Me and my insurance company just paid $17 for a couple of Advil that were given to my son in the ER when he broke his hand last month. So far the total bill for the ER all the doctors and supplies and surgery is about $30k.

Rain Trueax said...

All insurance is paid for by somebody.. in your case, it's government; since you are a government employee. It's part of your pay package. I would like to see universal coverage with no insurance companies why how could a broken hand run $30,000? You mean that is what they billed your insurance company? that sounds like a rip off to me

Ingineer66 said...

Well that is exactly what I thought. But he had to have surgery a few days after they tried to set and cast it in the ER. The same surgeon that saw him in the ER performed the outpatient procedure. So if you add up ER, Surgeon, lots of X-rays, supplies, Anesthesiologist, surgery center and on and on. They billed the insurance company $30k, a good portion was immediately written off because it exceeded the insurance company contract then they paid their share then I paid my share. And yes I am a state employee so they pay part of my health insurance as part of my salary but I choose to not have an HMO so I pay three hundred a month out of pocket in addition to their contribution plus co-payments and deductibles.

I still do not want socialized medicine we have that now with Medicare and Medicaid and the doctors have betrayed the public trust and the lawyers have grown fat and greedy with exorbitant claims.

Rain Trueax said...

interesting that you didn't mention insurance corporations and pharmaceutical companies, medical instrument corporations in your concern for too much money. You pick on the usual bad guys to republicans. Frankly the insurance companies make the most of anybody. If we went to socialized medicine, which we well might given how this is bankrupting a lot of families in the middle class, then I think it has to be cut out insurance company profits

Ingineer66 said...

I think we should shoot all the lawyers then mandate that everyone have health insurance just like we mandate that they have car insurance. Of course plenty of people don't have car insurance and plenty don't even have drivers licenses but that is another whole topic.
Maybe if we make it easier for employers to offer insurance to employees offer tax breaks or something and make it mandatory it would be like part of the minimum wage. Dont raise the minimum wage for the next several years but require any business with more than 5 employees to offer health benifits. Starbucks offers a plan if the employee works 20 hours per week or more. But Starbucks spends more for health insurance than they do on coffee. And the biggest purchaser of Viagra in the world is General Motors. They are no longer a car company they are an insurance company for current and retired employees. There is not a simple answer, but there are many things we can do to make the system work better.

Ingineer66 said...

As for pharmaceutical companies they are making a lot of profits for their stockholders but they are also coming up with many wonderful new drugs and it costs a lot of money to develop and get approval of those new drugs. But if you want an old drug like Vicodin or Penicillin it is very cheap even if you pay cash.

Rain Trueax said...

why do we need insurance companies? As long as they maintain the profits at the levels they are, mandating insurance premiums paid by people who make minimum wage means no money for food, and all this so the corporations can maintain their profits high for the stockholders. The answer is cut out the insurance companies except maybe for more elite coverage. It could be done so basic coverage was provided and to get the extras, that many like having, would be then paid for as a premium for those with money. As it stands, the reason many do not have insurance is they don't have money for the premiums, not because they don't want it. Naturally that would not meet with the insurance companies' goals and they will continue paying our congressmen to see it never happens.