Motion: THB that U.S. Democrats should be mandated to dictate what happens in their nation at large
Role: Secretary (opp.)
The democratic party is a joke when it comes to running the country differently. It claims a moral majority & superiority most of the time, but when it comes to putting all of that in action, scales fall off the eyes. One blatant example is what Barack Obama said right after the Boston Bombing Incident in April: ”We will hunt them down. Justice will be done; mark my words. This is a day of judgment.” His Biblical rhetoric did not differ to any extent from his predecessor, the most-reviled-president-of-all-time George W. Bush. What do you think about that? Before Bush (2001-2008), Nixon (1969-1974) was the scapegoat for all evil in administration. (Reagan was too popular for a thorough bashing.)
It is detrimental to the wellbeing of a nation that the power is shifted continuously between the Liberal ”moneyspenders” and the Conservative ”moneylenders”. One of the reasons the U.S. is in such a huge debt is its inability to fully go either along Keynes’ or Friedman’s monetary ways. Both count on making ends meet.
The basic dichotomy is simple: Democrats want a big state, so that they could help simultaneously the poor, the needy, immigrants, minorites and themselves, to taxpayer money. Consequently, they are popular among the ones whose position they claim to promote. Republicans want an organic state and small government that is just as big as the scale of the industry, talent and luck of the citizens. If that amounts to little, so be it. But what surplus value the nation may eventually create, they want to direct to medical research, protection, police forces, the justice and penal systems, as disease, war and crime are seen by Republicans as some of the few sources that can threaten free enterprise and the fruits of labour.
Judging by the numbers, the Democrats would appear to win every time, since the poor, needy, hapless, destitute or otherwise out of luck notoriously outnumber those who are favoured by Fortune. When they also have a moral, progressive and more diplomatic platform, how on Earth could Republicans compete with something like that? Well, a lot of the time they can’t!
What comes to the rescue of Republicans is Three Things:
1. Another party can’t co-opt human virtues by just saying so. It also has to act on what it says and do it convincingly. A lot of the time, Democrats don’t.
2. The devout Christian sub-platform that many Republicans have espoused and touted makes partially up for the shortcomings of core Republican goals and objectives, and shows that Republicans also do care, and show it most often in contributing to charity.
3. If and when working wage-earners and salarymen and women strike it rich and become abundantly wealthy through their own labour and toil, they have a strong impetus and temptation to switch from Democrat to Republican, and sometimes they do.
If things do not improve, soon there will be a time for a bistate solution in the USA as well, as is the case in the Middle East (Israel vs. Palestine). The liberal coastal areas must in all likelihood secede from continental USA, for their ideas of what a good life is is so very different based on a different take on money, sex, race, religion, entertainment and culture. What is acceptable, holy, frictionless, funny, parsimonious, or smooth on one side is the polar opposite on the other side. Liberal USA calls the Midwest ”the Flyover States”. I don’t know what the Midwest calls the coastal areas.
If things remain a stalemate or a dead end or an impasse, coastal USA could join the EU instead of its federal home. I’m sure they can find a way to air-bridge the separated slices of land with each other.
Puheen kesto: 5 min 39 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Puhe on lähes täydellisen mittainen kvantitatiivisesti; enempi tekisi sen, että sitä ei ehtisi puhua tyydyttävästi loppuun ja vähempi olisi – vähemmän. Aihekin on ajankohtainen (alati) ja näkemys oikeansuuntainen: demokratia on kehittynyt alkunsa jälkeen vääriin suuntiin kussakin sitä harjoittavassa maassa kussakin hieman eri tavoin eli USA:ssa näin ja muualla muin tavoin. Puhe on myös ytimekäs ja hapokas sillä tavalla, jota politiikassa ymmärretään.