There’s nothing more mortifying than for a presidential hopeful to generate press by attacking the patriotism of a sitting president. Rudy Giuliani’s comments about President Obama “not loving” his country are just terribly pathetic.
The Republican Party, with it’s Neo-conservative economic policies (what Reagan extolled as “trickle-down” economics) has presided over a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the ultra-rich (what I decry as “tinkle-down” economics). Now, the only way that I have been able to make sense of “love” is as an investment in creating power in people. Taking their money is exactly the opposite of that.
Contrast this with the centerpiece of Obama’s domestic policy: the Affordable Health Care Act. This is an investment in the people of America. It ensures that individuals can get medical care before their ailments become debilitating, and thus that they can remain active contributors to our economy. It lessens health care costs because it keeps people out of the emergency room, and thus will lower rates for everyone over the long term.
Now that – that is loving.
So why isn’t that perspective shared by Giuliani and his cronies?
There are two kinds of people: those that project themselves upon the world (narcissists) and those that allow the world into themselves (empaths). The Republican Party is beholden to the former: people that believe that whatever works for them is what is right for the country. The Affordable Health Care Act created some losers – very wealthy people that made their money by ensuring that they minimized the number of sick people on their plans. This left a back-log that has to be paid down as coverage is extended without regard for preexisting conditions. This means that, in the short term, rates will go up – particularly for those people that were on preferred coverage plans.
Giuliani represents those people, and all I have to offer is that it is un-Christian to ensure that sick people cannot rely upon society to invest in their healing. When Giuliani has the courage to recognize the inherent selfishness of that attitude, then I might have some confidence that, if elected president, he might actually love the people of this nation. And I don’t mean just the rich cronies that line his campaign coffers. I mean all of the people.
everdeepening 
http://dowlphin.deviantart.com/art/VOTE-FOR-the-lesser-of-two-EVILs-515468871
One right doesn’t mend a wrong. Sadly, the Democrap way is just a different strategy than the Repugnican one, for the same aim. As long as the aim is centralized control (which it is for both big parties), the systems are mere servants for that. Same with Obama being for net neutrality. It’s no surprise. Many big businesses consider that route better … for their profits. Others consider the abandonment of net neutrality to be better … for their profits.
Love isn’t even a sight on the horizon in those high political circles. The things people in those positions do … a person with empathy couldn’t do without hating themselves to death for it.
BTW it’s very likely the next president will be a democrat (not unlikely Thatcher … I mean Albright .. I mean Clinton, no not Bill, his wife, in good old plutocratic dynastic tradition. Obama did the unusual-demographic-for-a-president prepping for her.), unless there’s another convenient 9/11-like incident. Maybe a small nuke exploding in the homeland or such. That would also help destroy Iran then, so it would be opportune, because oil and middle east and world dominance.
Don’t mistake this for cynicism. I got plenty of experiential confirmation that this is realism. Sadly.
Fun fact: If Obama allegedly cares so much for the well-being of all US Americans but apparently so little for foreigners that he drone-bombs and exterminates in all kinds of ways, you know what that constitutes at the very least (besides sociopathy)? … National socialism. … Usually abbreviated “nazi”. And who is surprised after all that “Greatest country in the world” indoctrination?
Hitler isn’t dead. He has gained immortality through his enemies who are now carrying the torch.
Did you hear? The German government is supporting nazis in Ukraine now. And I don’t mean that in principal. They actually cherish Nazi Germany. How’s that for delicious irony/hypocrisy? (Well, probably not having much of an impact, considering Israel is another case on that direction.) A Ukrainian politician could even commit the deadly German sin of practicing Third Reich history revision on German state TV in the name of the nazis and nobody corrected him, because, you know, they’re our allies now.
Strange how appealing the old biblical idea of judgment day seems to me lately.
Dowlphin:
I have to say, I find this to be of concern.
I agree with the facts you reference, and I have criticized US policies on these matters in other posts. But they are not the issues I raised here.
I’m relating specific political issues to a theory of morality built around a specific definition of “love”. The post looks at two cases that were put forward by actual parties to the debate, using their terms. It compares the gap between stated intentions and actual outcomes.
I can accept criticism of the dialectic, but to engage with you in debate driven by your personal (and highly negative) characterization of issues beyond the scope of the post would seem to be to simply generate confusion. You might want to put this material up on your blog, and link to it with a one or two line reaction to my thoughts.
Take a deep breath, buddy.
Brian