Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference
“Every man is like the company he is wont to keep.”
—From the Greek play Phoenissae by Euripides, circa 410 BC
To answer one reader’s question: It is way too early for prognostication over the upcoming elections; however, I believe it is nicely shaping up to be a Romney/Clinton run-off. The red/blue, Republican/ Democrat, conservative/liberal teapot has been brewing long enough and is ripe to runneth over—in my never humble opinion.
In that spirit, I am frequently bemused by the so-called “independent” crowd. I liken them to the white flag, as in surrender, between the red (conservatives) and the blue (liberals).
To be more specific, they like to feign some semblance of intellectual prowess over us, the less enlightened. Apparently, the goal is to bridge some degree of commonality between the two political divides.
I’m here to tell you: It’s not possible.
One day I shall write a book deconstructing every liberal idea ever invented. I’ve spent the last six years—on and off—teaching the history of the United States Constitution at the college level and can say with absolute certainty that independents are fundamentally ignorant of it, as opposed to liberals who simply ignore it with platitudes, to-wit: It was written by bunch of wealthy, white men who owned slaves. This, of course, allows both groups off the proverbial hook.
To that extent, please witness the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis. You may categorize your position into one of two camps—hapless victims and predatory lenders, or dumb borrowers and even dumber lenders.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed a $70 billion economic stimulus plan that would, among other things, “[e]stablish a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities [to] mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures and [t]ake bold action to stem tide of foreclosure, including a 90-day moratorium on sub-prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages of at least five years.” (hillaryclinton.com)
According to MSNBC, Barrack Obama has proposed his own little $75 billion economic stimulus plan, which includes a $10 billion fund to help sub-prime homeowners facing foreclosure.
And based on everything I’ve read, only some 2-3 million people are facing foreclosures—in a country of 303 million people. Yet, why all the attention?
Perhaps a definition is in order for the uninitiated: A “sub-prime” lender is one who makes loans to borrowers who do not qualify for loans from mainstream lenders. That is, a borrower who has poor credit history, no credit history, an unstable job history and/or the like. (Perhaps you’d like to make a 30-year loan to such an individual?)
At the risk of pointing out the obscenely ridiculous, lenders in this category allow those who wouldn’t ordinarily qualify for a chance at the American dream of home ownership to actually do so.
More importantly, I’ve not read a thing in the United States Constitution that entitles one to a “bail out” from a bad decision. (I guess we’re not talking about Roe v. Wade, huh?)
Now to be fair, I am aware that the president first proposed a 90-day interest rate moratorium on the same topic and that Republican presidential candidates have advanced their own half-witted ideas on the subject.
This may well be the reason I’m a conservative first and a Republican second.
Personally, I have a news flash for Democrats and anyone else interested in said subject: Stop canonizing every defaulting borrower as a saint and vilifying every lender as predatory.
Secondly, I’d like Republicans to stop taking their political cues from Democrats.
Although that may perhaps bring us back to Euripides.