Wasn't it the Republican party that advocated freeing the slaves back in the 1860's?
Technically. And Repubs have ran with that, calling themselves the Party of Lincoln. But philosophically, I think the parties were backwards then, or at least not the same group they represent today (in either case).
For example, the GOP's slogan was "Free Labor, Free Land and Free Men.
Quote:
Free labor" referred to the Republican opposition to slave labor and belief in independent artisans and businessmen. "Free land" referred to Republican opposition to plantation system whereby the rich could buy up all the good farm land and work it with slaves, leaving the yeoman independent farmers the leftovers. The Party had the goal of containing the expansion of slavery, which would cause the collapse of the Slave Power and the expansion of freedom.[4] Lincoln, representing the fast-growing western states, won the Republican nomination in 1860 and subsequently won the presidency. The party took on the mission of saving the Union and destroying slavery during the American Civil War and over Reconstruction. In the election of 1864, it united with pro-war Democrats to nominate Lincoln on the National Union Party ticket.
Lincoln's opposition at the time were Southerners who were extremely anti-Federal Govt, Pro-State Govt. Lincoln was considered progressive, and his ideologies about slavery competed with others' good sense about the economy and business. While abolishing slavery wasn't Lincoln's chief goal, or even a goal, during his Presidency, it certainly became his legacy.
I'd call Lincoln more of a Whig, as well as Washington, something we can all share in the legacy.
A few years ago the congress (run by democrats past a law that basically phased out incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFL bulbs.
The timing was quite interesting. The week before the vote NBC (owned by General Electric) did what they called “Earth Week”
All of their news shows and many of their non-news shows focused on the environment and how Global Warming was going to kill us all. The network was awash in dire images of animals dying and humans drowning. NBC’s football coverage even got in the act by turning off their studio lights while the game was on and making their media types sit in the dark.
The imagery was stark. The country was up in arms and at the end of the week, a law was passed to “do something about this problem”.
Guess who the largest manufacturer of CFL bulbs is? General Electric the parent company of NBC…
By the way, the CFL, while using less energy than an incandescent light bulb, it has mercury in it. Those bulbs are supposed to be recycled but in reality they are going into landfills all over the country and this is putting our water in jeopardy from mercury poison.
AND as it relates to the little guy, incandescent bulbs are vastly less expensive to buy. While the cost of operation of a CFL is lower, it takes a lot of time to recoup the additional cost of purchase. This shift in cost structure to the front end instead of spread over the life of the bulbs use, HURTS the little guy.
Jeffery Immelt (CEO of General Electric) a notorious BIG GUY got even more super rich off of this move. You may have seen his name in the news in the last couple of weeks. Barak Obama just appointed him to head up the President’s Council on Jobs. It seems Jeffery and Barak are close friends and fellow Big Guy Democrats.
On this subject, noting will hurt the small guy more than Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a democrat idea to force businesses to spend so much money on energy that they curb their use of energy. It is planned to be set up as a trading scheme like the New York Stock Exchange, where companies buy and sell “carbon credits”.
Obama is a huge supporter of this. Guess what company has the plan to set up the trading platform? General Electric. Guess what company is set up to make hundreds of billions of dollars? General Electric.
I don’t see “for the little guy” anywhere in this.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Ferd, the pockets of major corporations have some very direct links to the GOP as well.
During the Bush era, Defense contracting alone was suspicious.
I think I'm skeptical of any political party claiming to be the savior for one class of people.
I'm a by-the-issue voter. Unfortunately, Gubernatorial, Presidential, representative elections always put me in a bind. I'm very much ready for a third and fourth party to be on the scene.
Ferd, the pockets of major corporations have some very direct links to the GOP as well.
During the Bush era, Defense contracting alone was suspicious.
I think I'm skeptical of any political party claiming to be the savior for one class of people.
I'm a by-the-issue voter. Unfortunately, Gubernatorial, Presidential, representative elections always put me in a bind. I'm very much ready for a third and fourth party to be on the scene.
I dont disagree... although it would be nice to show some spicific examples.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Democrat: "Love your neighbor IF they fit into any one of these minority classifications. HATE your neighbor if they make a nickle more then you an hour!"
Democrat: "Love your neighbor IF they fit into any one of these minority classifications. HATE your neighbor if they make a nickle more then you an hour!"
My main point here is to dispell the notion that one party is for the little guy and the other for the big guy.
The problem with most stereotypes is that there is often some shred or smidgen of truth to them.
The whole thing with prejudice is that one takes the stereotype of a group and places it on individuals.
There is a reason why the Republican party is referred to as beig pro-big business and the Democrat party is referred to as pro-big government. The reason is found in their past and even now as we see the break down of opinions along political-party lines in regards to healthcare reform.
Another example of the big guy vs little guy mindset can be clearly seen when discussing minimum wage. Many Republicans see the existence of a minimum wage as a bad thing. When it comes to increasing minimum wage, generally speaking, the difference in opinions usually break down over party lines-- Republicans against it, Democrats for it-- usually speaking and of course there are aberrations.
Using GWB as an example would be to use an extreme example of an aberration as you won't find a Republican in earth or time that would ever refer to that President as a "fiscal conservative."
The talk of big guy vs little guy boils down to one thing and that's immediate money in the pocket.
The point can be made however, that being pro "immediate money in the pocket" can actually work out to be against the little guy-- but that's my own opinion.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 02-08-2011 at 05:57 PM.
Linear Mode
