There are good Republicans and there are bad Republicans just as there are good Democrats and there are bad Democrats. This can be said about any race of people, any nationality, any age group, any financially-successful or unsuccessful group, any religious group, and either gender. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the basic philosophy each holds regarding how one should conduct his life as he is entangled in American society. It really isn’t about whether people are good or bad – it’s about people having differing beliefs.
The Republican philosophy is that something is not worth having unless it is worked for because working for something results in personal pride and personal happiness. These traits are extremely important to a staunch Republican.
Democrats do not share this Republican belief and place much less importance on how a person attains what one has in life. The Democrat philosophy does not embrace the work and effort aspect of attaining things in life. The Republicans cannot comprehend how a person would even want to have things without the personal satisfaction that can only come from having worked for something. The Democrats cannot understand how someone can have and not give abundantly to those who don’t have.
A Republican believes that if one works for what he accomplishes, he is happier and – as the old adage says – will respect and take better care of his possessions if he actually works for everything himself. Democrats don’t put importance on the way goals and material things are achieved as they simply believe that everyone should have – regardless of who does the work and puts forth the effort to attain it.
Let’s use living quarters of people as an example. If a person works hard for years and saves money to put a down payment on a house – and then keeps working for years until the house is paid off – a Republican is proud of his accomplishment. If he inherited the money and was basically blessed with the finances to buy the house, the material end result is the same but just doesn’t carry that sense of pride, accomplishment, and happiness that is felt when a house is earned by personal hard work throughout one’s life.
A Democrat, however, believes that working for the house is not essential to having one. They believe that the people who worked hard to own their own house should personally have less in order to “give back” by giving to those who don’t have because the others have not worked their whole life to achieve their living quarters.
Using living quarters as an example again, a renter can be compared to an owner. Obviously, the owner is more likely to take the best care of what he has because he worked for it and he needs it to last. The renter may be conscientious about not destroying things – if for no other reason than getting the security deposit back when moving out – but they definitely don’t have the same sense of ownership and protective custody that only an owner living in a house has.
A Republican believes much the same about everything the government now provides for some citizens for free. He believes everything should be worked for to be totally appreciated and, more than that, to give a person the total feeling of self-worthiness and self-accomplishment.
A Democrat trusts that those who receive without having to work will take care of things and will still have some sense of self-worth at the end of the day.
This writing is not about which political Party’s philosophy is right or wrong, but to point out the stark difference in beliefs of Republicans and Democrats. The differences aren’t difficult to comprehend.
It isn’t wrong to expect people to work for what they get in life – nor is it wrong to expect people to share what they have with those who don’t have because they cannot achieve.
Republicans continually try to convince Democrats that they don’t want the “haves” to have to give to the “have-nots” – unless the “have-nots” really have a very good reason for being given something for free. There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking. But, how can this belief be accomplished?
To believe that there aren’t people who abuse the acceptance of our government’s “handouts” is simply being naïve. Likewise, to believe that there aren’t some people who honestly need our government’s “handouts” to survive is being naïve, too.
Therefore, how can the government make those who receive a free handout more convincingly prove that they need financial assistance? How can those who are just plain lazy and living off a liberally tinged government be weeded out of the government’s payroll?
The answers to these questions are what Congress should be working on more than anything else when they work on the nation’s economy.
Stricter governmental guidelines are needed for a person to receive a government paycheck. These guidelines need to involve stricter limits on what people can do with their free government paycheck. If something isn’t needed for survival, it should not be purchased with the American taxpayer’s dollars because the government shouldn’t be in the business of gifting people – which Republicans complain is being done now.
Obviously, currently being trillions upon trillions in debt, the nation can’t afford to give to those who do not have absolute needs for survival to be financially assisted. Republicans want to feel assured that their hard-earned tax dollars are only helping people who absolutely cannot provide for themselves.
The guidelines and requirements would take away the Republican argument that many people are basically stealing from the government by getting free money they could be working for. It would take away the notion that people getting government checks for free are using it on non-essentials.
Of course, not providing the necessities in life for those who cannot provide for themselves isn’t right either. Democrats try to make Republicans feel guilty about not wanting to give to the truly needy. Giving to the truly needy is not the issue with Republicans. Therefore, the Democrat’s intended guilt-trip on the Republicans doesn’t wash clean.
It would be great if our government could find ways to accommodate both Parties’ beliefs. It shouldn’t have to be all one way and not the other, but that’s the way our government – led by our politicians – has operated for the better part of the past century.
Neither Party seems interested in compromising and meeting the other half-way. Unfortunately, America is currently stuck in a non-workable mode in the nation’s capital while the handouts are flowing quite freely. In turn, this is driving our nation further and further in debt.
True story: I was talking to a guy in Chicago last month. I was admiring his phone with all the bells and whistles that I’ve never had on my phone because it’s not something that I truly need – and I shouldn’t be wasting my money on such a luxury right now. When I asked the man how much the phone cost him and how much it costs for the phone service, he told me that he doesn’t know. He said that he got the phone for free from the government – along with free minutes of usage every month.
I was flabbergasted. A person on welfare has a much better phone than I have because the government just gave it to him. Instead of feeling envious and wondering “Hey, Uncle Sam, where’s mine?” the truth is that I’ll have to budget harder and do without something else if I choose to have such a phone in the future.
Again, stricter guidelines and requirements are needed so that individuals receiving government “handouts” must prove their needs. Then, only their needs should be met when receiving from the government.
About Scott Paulson
Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.