ACHILLES' HEEL AND THE FATAL FLAW OF
TODAY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY
If you don't already know it, briefly study the Greek myth of Achilles and his fatal weakness that did not appear at first.
Born to be a great warrior, it was told early on that Achilles would die in battle. His mother, Thetis, took the infant to the River Styx where it was said its waters would give anyone invincibility to problems.
But as Achilles' mother lifted the baby by his foot to dunk him in the river, she forget to dunk his ankle area by which she was holding him into the river. The result, is later on, he had an arrow sunk into his heel, killing him.
Something that was overlooked early on, proved fatal in time.
THE MILITARY IS A HUGE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, TOO
Where I live, there is much buzz about many people planning to vote for the Republican presidential nominee who will be decided 30 miles from my newspaper's doorstep, in Tampa. Unless something totally unforeseen happens, the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney.
I've talked with many friends who say they will vote for Mr. Romney, or whomever the Republicans nominate, because they are tired of big government and big spending under the Democrats.
They are assuming there is little if any cost to taxpayers in some of the major military escalations Mr. Romney is already talking about around the world.
Mr. Romney recently publicly made many favorable comments about the last Republican administration and told what a fantastic president George W. Bush was.
Already, Mr. Romney is talking about military action against Iran, which in my opinion is no direct threat to the United States outside of our ego.
He has revived cold car talk that has already angered the Soviet Union for no good reason, in my view,and he is talking about ramping up the U.S. military machine around the world even further.
OBAMA HAS BEEN A DISAPPOINTMENT, TOO
We have two huge statist parties in the United States, quoting Jim Cook. And he's right; we've seen it time and time again. Each administration and congress spends more than the last one; it doesn't matter the party. The only difference is how the chairs are re-arranged.
Trying to be all inclusive in talking about political parties is like trying to define a color, or trying to define your average watermelon.
Generally, the Democrat party tends to want to serve the spending orgy closer to home in domestic spending and social engineering. Let's play "Wheel Of Fortune" with someone else's money closer to home where the money is easier to grab.
Many Republicans, on the other hand, want to move the spending orgy to foreign countries we try to make over in our corporate image, creating a huge government program out of the military. The idea is we can open more markets, even those with religions hostile to ours, and make the world safe for Wall Street expansion. There are a few doubters in the Republican Party, such as Texas Congressman Ron Paul who believes "conservatives" need to be more consistent. Some never seem to envision a military battle they couldn't support. And they are not cheap, as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven. Is a huge, world-flung military empire not a huge government program, too, that must be supported by taxpayers? Have we even seen any "spoils" of war in our Middle East intrusion.
You may agree or not agree with this analysis, but I believe throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at foreign wars and foreign nation building is the Achilles heel of the Republican Party and many self-called "conservatives."
George W. Bush claimed he was a "conservative" president, but I don't see it that way. His administration actually started many of the huge corporate and banking bailouts some try to blame totally on the Obama Administration.
And the Bush White House was less than accurate and maybe even truthful in taking us into war in Iraq and elsewhere. These wars are now in their second decade...longer than our involvement in World War I and World War II combined.
They see a school lunch program in Atlanta as a socialist program, but they don't see the same thing of spending trillions of dollars in the Middle East with questionable results any act of socialism or foolish spending.
Do any of these self-professed "fiscal conservatives" who support these wars without end in the Middle East ask themselves if the $4 trillion in U.S. "funny money" to pay for these wars has anything to do with our current financial crisis?
Or, are only domestic social programs to blame for our debt, deficits and expansion in the money supply?
Again, the bloated military is never seen as anything to be questioned by these "conservatives," a label they proudly wear almost to the point of hypocrisy.
And those would be other names for the Achilles Heel that I fear will destroy the economy, nation and political landscape further in our country if the Republicans are elected. Words such as "contradiction," "hypocrisy," "inconsistency" all come to mind.
As Socrates said "All wars are over money," that certain seems accurate even today if you include "power" and "primacy" in the definition of "money."
President Obama has been a big disappointment to me, but I fear some who will vote for the Republicans in November assume they are voting for the "conservative spenders." This has not always proven true in the past. Government spending never seems to be reduced; it is merely SHIFTED.
SHOVE GOVERNMENT FORCE ON THE OTHER DUPE
Here's another way to look why we keep getting larger and more intrusive government no matter which major party gets voted in.
Some Republicans wisely say government and politicians should stay out of our pocketbooks and checkbooks. But these very same people who want the government out of THEIR lives, want to stick the coercion of government on others whose personal lives they don't agree with.
Some Republicans I know well feel there is no reason for the government to be in their business or personal finances. But they also want to use the force of government on the rights of women and their bodies, on the gays and others.
Likewise, some Democrats who want the government out of their lives, bedrooms and personal practices, want to take that very same government and force its coercion onto Republican-types and trying to get into their wallets and businesses.
It seem everyone loves more government---on someone else...and understandably they want less of it on themselves.
In this way, both "sides" believe in libertarianism to a degree---as long as they get THEIR freedom and the force of government is unleashed on someone else.
Many Democrats talk like Republican Ron Paul and want the government out of their personal lives and bedrooms. In my opinion, Ron Paul is one of the most consistent elected official in the country, who has talked the same for decades. A speech he gave 20 years ago sounds like the speech he gave last week.
Many Republicans talk like libertarians when they want government out of their businesses and personal finances. But some of them don't mind sticking it in foreign countries to try to remake them at taxpayer expense.
Where the love of government comes in by both sides is the desire to "control" or "coerce" the other side. It's like the old saying about taxes, "Don't tax me, tax the guy under the tree."
The same with government regulation. The Democrat says, "I want the government to regulate business and the personal finances of the rich. But keep government out of my bedroom and lifestyle."
The typical "conservative" Republican says, "I want government to regulate women's bodies, gays and start more wars in the Middle East. But keep government out of my business and stock funds." What is small government about that?
Hypocrisy is the main ingredient in politics today. I remember the older President Bush used a Texas hotel room as his legal residence to save on taxes while at the same time working to raise yours after promising not too. As not to talk about only one party, former President Clinton would have been fired and would have faced legal action for some of the things he did in the White House.
We have all sorts of laws, rules, regulations and penalties on the private sector and business when they do not do as promised.
Isn't it about time...not that we need another law...that we pass a very tough law on politicians, office holders, government employees and candidates for office not to lie to the public? Any proven lie would result in immediate forfeiture of the office and criminal penalties? It's done on the private sector, why not the government sector?
Martha Stewart was given prison time supposedly for telling an untruth to a government employee about insider stock issues, something that at the same time, members of Congress were permitted to do.
What happens when government employees and politicians lie to the taxpayers?
Thank about some of these inconsistencies in our government and political system.
All I am suggesting here are the same treatment for everyone, promoting consistency, honesty and watching for the results of Achilles heels in our government and political parties.