The Political Name Game

        A name can mean a lot and project an image.  That image may or may not be representative. 

        We have a Republican political party.  That name comes from the fact our government was formed as a republic.  We elect representatives to conduct the business of government for us.  We just can’t be informed in every aspect of government.

        We have a Democratic political party.  That name comes from democracy, which we like to think we are, when our government actually is a republic.

        The Libertarian political party is simple.  These people believe in personal liberty and freedom with less government control. 

        Constitutionalist political party is again simple.  They believe in following a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  None of the notion that the Constitution is a “Living Document.”  This often is just an excuse to ignore the Constriction for the personal gain of special interest groups in my opinion.  

        Now let’s touch on some more political names.  We have “Socialist”. The Socialist Party USA web site says, “The Socialist party strives to establish a radical democracy that places peoples lives under their own control.”

        I have a little confusion here because they are proposing “progressive” changes though government controls to achieve this.  These government controls equalize people, but take away individual freedoms. 

        Socialism means a government controlled economy and government controlled business.  Again this takes away individual freedoms.  It is very confusing. 

        The Communist party has a more negative image.  I think that is because it brings an image of violence.  I have a hard time differentiating between socialism and communism except for the violence aspect. 

        Both socialism and communism have several things in common.  They both advocate strong governments with a political elite making decisions for what the people need.  There will be no rich except for the political elite. 

        Both parties talk about the rights of the individual.  They advocate the “Right” to some minimum standard of living.  This is a “Right” that does not have to be earned. 

        The potential negative side to this political view is the individuals ‘Right” to work and earn a standard of living higher than the minimum is diminished.  Incentive to succeed is taken away. 

This is not true for the political elite who are the decision makers.  Theoretically, they are working in the best interests of all the people.  We know how well that idea works, don’t we. 

        Liberals and conservatives are more clouded because there are both social issues and fiscal issues.  Many individuals are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal or social issues, or vice versa.

        On fiscal issues conservatives are for less government, and liberals are for more government.  Personally, I don’t think social issues should be handled by government anyway and certainly not the Federal government. 

        On some social issues like religion, we end up letting a small minority dictate to the majority anyway.  This is just not right. 

        Now to a political term that drives me crazy.  What is a political “Progressive.”  Most definitions of the word “Progressive” are positive.  The political “Progressive” is for larger government, more government spending, more government debt, and less individual freedoms.  Personally, I don’t call that positive or progressive. 

        Have we heard anything like “Large Government” with any other political parties?  Must just be a coincidence.  What’s the old saying?  “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.”  Some politicians now hedge their bet by calling themselves “Modern Progressives.” 

        Many “Progressives” talk about the “European Socialist Economy.”  How well is that working out for Greece?  Socialism has never worked in history that I can find.  Why do we keep trying to reinvent the wheel?

One other thing that drives me crazy with the political name game is how the same issue can be brought up over and over again with a new name. 

“Global Warming” is a good example.  This came after the predictions for another “Ice Age” in the 1970s.  Global warming is a big issue and a potential fortune for the political elite.  If a political proposal is not acceptable, just change the name, and try again.  The name keeps changing.  How many names has this issue had?  Now we hear things like “Clean Air and Jobs” and “Green Jobs”.  Just how naive does the political elite think we are?