| i think there's too often a knee-jerk association connection made with spending money and liberalism. liberals aren't the only ones who spend money. for example, kim jong is definitely no liberal and he spends all of his money on his military. reagan was more conservative (because he actively fought to limit spending through his veto), but not as right wing.
that said, i'm not interested in validating a semantical argument. i label bush as being far right according to my own perception of what that term means.
to be a right wing american in my eyes includes, christian fundamentalism, unapologetically racist, ignoring low/middle class woes while giving huge benefits to the rich, a tendency towards unilateral/isolationist and warlike actions, shifting social spending towards military spending, disregard for all laws (be they international or domestic), homophobia and the complete perversion of keynesian economics....
egalitarianism is the driving force behind liberal spending. but, under bush's rule, inequality (the gini coefficient for those who know) has increased to all-time highs.
we could make comparisons maybe... for reagan vs. bush..
how big was the deficit?
did reagan enact anything similar to patriot act 1 and 2?
reagan's biggest scandal was iran-contra, bush's was iraq-wmd.
stem cell research
increase in poverty.
increase in military spending.
etc.. |