Republican Obstruction and the I Got Mine Theory

Posted by Jason Douglas on 09.15.2009

A look at the inner workings of "the party of no", and the role it should play in the years ahead...

First I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback on my debut. For those who missed it, this is Shockmaster, frequent commenter and new writer. I'd also like to welcome Grant "The Spook" Muioc, who will provide a vociferous conservative perspective to the politics zone. While I'm going to get my hands a bit dirtier this time, the spirit will be the same. I want to encourage analysis and critical thinking, not just fan the flames for maximum comments. The more participation the better, as long as it's constructive. On with today's topic.

No matter the subject, a person's perception on any issue is usually tied to their own experience. This is a decidedly unscientific way of analyzing something. If you were told a study revealed something you found controversial, then told the study was of one person, you would immediately reject the finding. Yet when that one person is YOU, all of a sudden you know the experience of the entire human race.

The concept of a world view based on personal experience alone belies a certain psychological profile in Americans. I call it the "I got mine" theory. If on the one day you went to the DMV the line wasn't a mile long, you would say the service is good. Garbage pickup is top quality until they don't haul away your bulk item. Streets are well maintained unless you're the one who hit a pothole. Medical care is great until you are denied treatment, treated poorly or inefficiently, or have a bad outcome because the doctor was careless.

At Obama's health care speech we all saw the group to his left. There were only withered, sour white faces everywhere. About every twelve seats one woman could be seen, seeming out of place next to those all around her. It had been some time since I saw the entire Congress all together, and it was startling. The right side of a body of government which is supposed to represent its citizens instead looked like a club for old rich white people, convened to continue the consolidation of wealth in the hands of those who look like them. There they were, fighting against the treatment of sick people, saying it's too expensive. What constitutes something being too expensive? Let's take a closer look.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been ardently defended from the start as worth not only a massive price tag but also a huge death toll. Most of the dead are not Americans, so of course they don't count. In theory, these wars ultimately help stabilize oil prices by installing governments which are friendly to us. Since that helps the businesses these GOP politicians have a personal stake in, directly or through campaign related connections, they are worth the cost. Tax cuts for the rich, which were supposed to trickle down, were worth the cost, we have been told. When it comes to caring for the sick, however, the national debt, never a priority to the GOP before January 20th of this year, is suddenly more important. Republican obstruction has nothing to do with the destructive effects of massive debt. They have proved consistently that just like Democrats, it's acceptable to them to break the bank in the long term for political and personal gain.

So why does the party of Christian values scowl at those in need? When someone knows the right people and can work the system to their own advantage, they see no problems to fix. They've got theirs. Just do what they did! The flaw in this logic, of course, is that we can't all do that. Low wage workers are denied a realistic minimum wage increase because it will hurt their employer's bottom line. In an economy where we can't all be lawyers, doctors and accountants, we do not have a level playing field. While it is possible for ANYONE to succeed, it is impossible for EVERYONE to succeed. As far as Republicans are concerned, as long as they get theirs, the system works. Any attempt to change it is dangerous since they have nothing to gain. But what about the rest of us?

It stands to reason that if the average American's wages stagnate or are eaten up by added personal costs like health insurance (or a huge bill for those who don't have it) then over time we will consume far less, meaning more layoffs due to decreased demand, and a vicious circle that could destroy our economy. Try starting a poker game with one player holding most of the chips. That's what those on top advocate, simply because they happen to be ahead. This helps no one, and it's time a large segment of the population stopped voting against their own interests.

Fear not, conservative readers. This is far from a claim that Democrats should run everything. As mentioned above, they are just as willing to serve their own interests at our expense. I encourage conservatives to bring pressure on your party to be something worth voting for. The rich elites and fringe lunatics are destroying your party, the only thing keeping Democrats from going berserk with their own orgy of excess. Between eight years of Bush and six years of Blagojevich in Illinois, I have seen the horrors of either side having dominant power. It's time we stop letting them play the people of this country against each other, and use that tactic against them. A viable third party is a long way off. In the meantime, we need to realize that the best we can do is keep these two sides in check, lest they wreck the country. In the years ahead, we will need someone to say "no" in Washington. It would be far more effective if it didn't come from greedy, old white men and misguided teabaggers who are duped into thinking their side really cares about "traditional values". Bush did next to nothing on abortion, just as Obama won't spend any political capital on gay marriage. Stop voting based on things your candidate will never take action on anyway, and place a priority on defending our standard of living. This is our country, and it's time we got ours.