Thursday, March 09, 2006

regulation

A couple of great posts today(specifically "Sign O' the Times" and "The Republican Revolution...") on FDL. Greg talks about deregulation and the ridiculousness of the idea behind it:
Businesses exist for one reason only : to make money. I don't begrudge them that, but I do think one of the big lines that separates the two parties is that Democrats by and large think our laws should protect Americans from amoral entities, while Republicans are content with pretending that corporations have our best interests in mind. Of course, if a company is actually held to that same standard later, "pro-business" shills are quick to point out that their obligation is to shareholders.

He poses this inconsistency another way later:
When a politician talks about 'deregulating' something, what he really means is getting rid of the laws that 99% of the time exist for a damn good reason...For a party that prides itself on its common sense, [Republicans] seem smitten with the retarded idea that the only thing that stands in the way of corporate titans keeping the environment clean (to cite one example) are the laws that mandate the very thing they're refusing to do.

Exactly. This is something I've been harping on for a while as well, though I never connected the Republican equivocations about the "obligation... to shareholders." This type of ideological inconsistency is a pretty clear indicator of insincerity in my opinion. It's normal for people to be somewhat inconsistent, but usually it's because there's they just haven't completely explored, or "unpacked" as philosophers say, the ramifications of their beliefs on a certain subject. Sorta like when an anti-Roe v. Wade person goes to a fertility clinic because they haven't considered the connection between abortion and in vitro fertilization (i.e. in order to fertilize you, they have to kill an awful lot of other fertilized eggs). Or when someone who's vehemently anti-Disney pays money to see a Touchstone picture, not considering the fact that, since Touchstone is owned by Disney, they're in fact paying Disney to see the movie.

This inconsistency, however, is on the very same issue, and anyone who gets paid to develop their political philosophy (like political parties) would catch this inconsistency. A genuine believer would untie that knot, but these guys don't bother, because their primary loyalty is not to their ideology or, for that matter, their voters. Voters are slack-jawed sheep who can be convinced to support even the most blatant lie. Just like corporations themselves, their primary loyalty is to their shareholders, i.e. big business, the Republican party's biggest donors.

No comments: