|
take a look at the issue of government oversight and attitudes to government regulatory agencies ...
one might argue that both conservatives and corporatists would both want to see less oversight and less regulation ... one could too hastily conclude that, by definition, conservatism is corporatism ...
but i disagree ...
if one were to argue that by promoting laissez faire capitalism, i.e. unregulated capitalism, the tide would lift all boats, implicit in one's argument would be the objective that "all boats should be lifted" ...
i strongly disagree with unregulated capitalism precisely because it does nothing but widen the gap between rich and poor and it leads to a survival of the fittest economy ...
HOWEVER, at least, for those sincere in this belief, and i call them conservatives, they are advocating for the general welfare ...
SUCH IS NOT THE CASE WITH CORPORATISTS ... by definition, the goal of the corporatists is nothing more than good old fashioned GREED ... they want "smaller government" because gutting oversight agencies weakens the public interest and strengthens their hand ...
Rockridge seems to acknowledge the massive gains made by corporate America under "conservative deregulation" but they seem to disassociate the result from the motivation ... Rockridge argues that conservatives seek deregulation because of their ultimate belief in markets - i think they are wrong ... i think Corporatists are seeking deregulation to aid their greedy pursuits ... they don't belief markets will make things better for America and Americans; they believe deregulation will make things better for them ... they don't want product safety laws; they don't want food safety laws; the don't want workplace safety laws; they don't want anti-pollution laws ... they don't want these things before they restrain their greedy intentions ... they know damned well that these laws benefit the public; they oppose the laws because they are costly for business to adhere to ... period ... conservatives may indeed see merit in less regulation and smaller government; corporatists, however, make the same arguments but for very different reasons ...
Rockridge also seems to miss the point on foreign policy ... I will TRUST NO ONE and no organization that fails to prominently disclose bush's MOTIVES for going into Iraq ... as far as i can see, Rockridge misses the point on Iraq ... while they recognize that huge profits have been made by Big Oil and others, they fail to recognize this as the sole motivation for war ... instead, they seem to be saying that conservatives use war too readily to achieve the national objectives ... again, i see Corporatists as using war to achieve THEIR GREEDY OBJECTIVES ...
look at this statement they made:
"Given this conviction, it’s no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market — the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest."
what do they mean by the phrase "take care of the rest"????? what Rockridge is saying is that conservatives believe free markets will make life better FOR THE IRAQIS !!!
but bush et al aren't just conservatives; they're CORPORATISTS!!! and they don't give a damn about the Iraqi people and Rockridge seems to miss this point ... it's not that "free markets" will achieve the goal of America helping Iraqis; it's that "free markets" will tie the hands of the Iraqi government and prevent them from interfering as BIG OIL walks off with their profits !!!!
this is an essential difference between what Rockridge is selling and the "enlightened left" ... and i repeat, those calling for even one more day of occupation JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! and the nonsense of another year, or more, is truly a lack of understanding about why we are in Iraq OR it is complicit with bush's objectives ... frankly, i'm not sure which is the case ...
|