My opinion is that the country is on the wrong path, and that's probably the common view for Right Wing people. I lean right, but I'm not Conservative or Republican, but I normally vote that way because those people are slightly better than Liberals. The Why? of the wrong path is what fills the political sections of Conservative media. I think I've got it.
Poor people want free stuff, so they vote for the party/ideology that gives them the most. They don't want to work hard, and they don't want to have full responsibility for themselves. Winston Churchill watched the UK switch from a country of self-sufficient, strong people to a country of needy people, and it cost him re-election after WWII. The same transition is occurring in the U.S. right now.
Democrats have made the poor their constituency, and as long as Democrats keep handing out free stuff and telling them publicly, "It's not your fault," the poor will continue voting for them. So who is responsible for the plight of the poor? Democrats tell the poor it's the fault of the rich, which is now defined by the Left as anyone earning more than about $100,000 per year. It's a smart strategy, because the poor greatly outnumber the "rich".
An entire movement, begun in the 1960s or possibly earlier, has arisen, a very broad movement that stays on message: tell the poor that the only reason they are poor is because the "rich" are exploiting them. OWS is an example, but it's much more ubiquitous than that. Hollywood is onboard. K-12 teachers are involved, for the most part. The majority of our colleges and universities are following the plan, and they are particularly notorious. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- and other black figures -- are pushing these message in the minority communities.
The press, especially the New York Times and public media such as NPR, are wholly dedicated to the cause of keeping the poor focused on blaming the Right Wing and all "wealthy" people for their own station in life. The message, which is sometimes subtle and sometimes wielded like a blunt object, is that voting Democrat will "right" this great "wrong." You begin to see the scope of the problem when you consider that all evidence points to 85% of US media being Democrat and/or Liberal. You almost have to admire them because they have a plan, and they're working every possible angle to see it through, and they are very patient.
An acquaintance of mine, a Brazilian immigrant to the Los Angeles area, told me he listens to Roger Hedgecock, a nationally syndicated Right Wing talk show host. I was surprised by this at first. The Brazilian said Hedgecock is smart an entertaining, "but he's racist." I asked Why, and he said that he hates immigrants. The press is doing its job well, I thought, because they have removed the line between "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant". No Right Wing person, except for the tiny minority of fringe radicals who have no voice in America or within the legitimate Right, hates immigrants. They see the millions of illegals entering the country every year as a negative thing, nothing more, nothing less. Yet the press is training the public and immigrants that it's purely racist in nature.
And that brings us to another deep well of votes for Democrats -- the Mexican influx. The border, a sliver more secure than it was 15 years ago, is still mostly wide open. Several million people enter the US from the southern border every year, and while these illegals can't legally vote, the great majority of their children -- automatic citizens because of the federal "anchor baby" policy -- will vote for the party that is fighting very hard to keep the border open -- Democrats.
Many of the illegals, not just their legal children, actually do vote, as we find out each election, because Democrats have fought tenaciously to prevent voter ID reforms at polling places. It's a simple plan, really -- a voterID scheme would result in fewer votes for Democrats.
This source of Mexican votes, nearly unlimited in future years as the illegals continue to enter the country in large numbers and with a birth rate far in excess of the indigenous population of the US (plus an anchor baby policy that provides tremendous incentive to immediately begin procreating), is the reason Democrats try to stop every attempt at reform. It's a matter of votes, and this is why the Obama administration immediately sues any state that tries to stop the huge in-flow of illegals. The cries of "racism" are a smokescreen for the real issue: votes, re-election, and political power.
Interestingly, most Mexicans -- though not all -- living in the U.S. have subscribed to the idea that all people who want to stop illegal immigration are racist. It's interesting because Mexico's own immigration laws are very draconian. Unlike in the U.S., when an illegal is apprehended in Mexico, a prison term results, not deportation. Whenever a Right Wing politician talks about sending the U.S. military to patrol the southern border, Mexican government officials, and Democrats, and Mexican immigrants in the U.S., say it's racist. The Mexican military patrols the southern Mexican border.
This demonstrates the effectiveness of the broad plan to keep the poor focused on blaming others for their problems. Mexican immigrants are willing to say that Right Wing immigration policies are racist, even when their own people -- friends and family back home -- must also be racists, using this strange logic. It's the right policy for me, this logic says, but if you use it, you're a racist.
Two interesting things apply to the immigration issue. When Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as governor of California, he quickly made a public speech about the need to secure the border between California and Mexico. The next day he retracted the comments. Why? Did the Republican party instruct him to change his view? This makes sense if Republicans want to capture a slice of the fastest growing section of the population -- Hispanics.
The second interesting thing is Harry Reid's flip-flop on immigration. Today as a Democrat and Senate Majority Leader, Reid favors an open border policy, as most Democrats do. This was not always so. Go here to see Harry Reid saying the anchor baby policy is terrible. Why the change? The same reasons Schwarzenneger flip-flopped. Getting votes and keeping the party strong is more important than doing what's right for America.
I don't have a solution. How do we get poor people back on track? By "on track" I mean getting them to understand that they are responsible for their own quality of life and government is only here to provide a basic platform for them to build their own wealth. If they want to make more money and drive a better car and live in a bigger house in a better neighborhood, they have to follow the same basic formula that the rest of us must follow -- get a good education, including a college degree in an area that pays well ("peace studies" doesn't qualify), and work very hard both at school and on their career. They need to stop blaming others for their plight, and start working hard to better themselves.
As I said at the beginning of this stream-of-consciousness rant, there is a problem. I believe I have identified the problem, but I have no idea how to solve it.