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.