Wealth has a natural tendency to accumulate - the poor can't save; the rich can and do. The resulting concentration, unrestrained, leads to explosions - eg the French revolution. Republicans' behavior has consistently opposed any retraint on accumulation, any effort to moderate extremes of wealth and poverty, while Democrats support such restraints.
Further, Republicans tend to be more hawkish in foreign policy, and less empathetic with people who succumb to whatever forces depress them.
I'm willing to listen, but so far I'll stick to being a dependable Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So I'll try to play devil's advocate:
ReplyDeleteWhat would be your response to the line of reasoning "It is best to keep the rich as rich as possible, because no poor person ever gave someone a job."
Your reasoning fails. If you had said "it is good to keep some rich enough to hire athers" you'd be right. But "as rich as possible"? Too much concentration of power. There's no such thing as "as rich as possible". They're up to 10^11 now. What's to stop 10^12 or more (worse!)?
Delete