Our brothers, the Republicans, think THEY are the good Capitalists.
In reality, if they want to be patriotic Capitalist they should be Democrat and Progressive.
They confuse Capitalism with Consumerism, and no, that's NOT the same thing. This fake equality is just a marketing ploy.
Whats more, Consumerism is somewhat at odds with three little inalienable rights called Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Oh, and by the way, for those of you from Arizona, "Inalienable Rights" doesn't mean rights that should never be given to people with Hispanic names).
In Consumerism people consume. Usually way more than their basic needs. Not in order to become happy, or to obtain freedom, but just for the heck of it. Corporations can own everything, according to five Supreme Court judges chosen by Republican presidents, so good ol' Glock inc. is at least as important as good Americans, humans, or the planet (and way more influential).
According to elected Republicans officials its ok to buy more than you need, eat more than you need, sh*@% more than you need, make more babies than you can handle, and screw everybody else cause they are not good Americans... and what? You wanna tell me what to do? That's regulating! That's anti Capitalist!
Really??? Well, its not.
In Capitalism the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit by PEOPLE. Its a tool with no social agenda. The social agenda is the Declaration of Independence.
By keeping the means of production in the hands of private citizens (NOT "Citizen United", or a Rollerball** type corporations), you guarantee that people run things, not an unregulated mathematician in a bank running stochastic and thermo equations in a derivative scheme. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is responsible for making it work. But that's not in contradiction with the government's responsibility to protect you from rat poison in baby food.
Especially since Ronald Reagan Republicans equated Consumerism with Capitalism without even knowing why Reagan did it. President W valued productivity and average income over standard of living, employment, and even the number of beers consumed by Jenna. A certain talk show host that gives me a rash, but doesn't seem to be able to give me the Limbo dance, keeps on insisting that the balance of trade is never a problem, and bigger imports mean we consume more, hence our economy is the largest (even if 60% of that is debt to others).
But of course both didn't get it (surprise, surprise). Consumerism under Reagan was meant to have us consume like crazy for one single purpose: daring the Soviet Union into a game of "Chicken". An interesting premise that - and I will be gracious in blaming the Alzheimer for preventing him from passing it on to The Shrubs, or whatever that family is called**
So we got stuck with a huge deficit, and since Republicans thought the banks and credit cards companies need to survive superseded people's need to survive, they allowed them to charge interest rates and fees that would make Muhammad roll in his grave. That made some of us slaves for life, or even worse.
But that's not Capitalism.
The Republican adventure in Iraq was already described at the time of our founding fathers:
From Adam Smith, the Scott/Brit that invented Capitalism, in his Capitalism launching book "Wealth of Nations", comes an example of failure of a certain kind of consumerism ("Of War and Public Debt"): he pointed out that some guys like to consume power, so they purchase that little fun game called war. Those guys don't raise taxes during the war because if they do no one would let them play their favorite blood sport, so they "borrow" - but then it takes over a generation, according to Smith, till the price of war is fully paid (because you can't raise the taxes right after a war, right?, Especially if it wasn't perfectly successful little game. Its ok to Kick the can down the road. Now let me see. Hmmm... Who was really good at THAT lately?
Smith was still (barely) alive when we were the ones kicking some Brit butt, and guess what: we almost bankrupted Britain because their king was a consumerist. Now we are doing the opposite, and guess who on the political map doesn't want to kill people, especially if it means that we can't pay the bill? That's the LIFE part, remember that one? Oh yes. Progressives! Bring the troops back home!
And who, like Mr. Smith, thinks people have rights instead of Phillip Morris, Exxon and Walmart? Who thinks that its more important to let workers specialize and bargain for their salaries and services instead of being a Jacks of All Trades serving one master for life? Progressives.
Who thinks the government doesn't have the right to listen in on your private panting without a search warrant? Who thinks you shouldn't be waterboarded in Poland just because you had a crush on a girl from Malaysia? Who thinks you are innocent until proven guilty even if you do look Hispanic or Middle Eastern? That's us. Liberty, YO!
And who thinks tax loopholes for corporations should be closed, and tax cuts should be given to small businesses that reduce the unemployment rates in our area? That wealth should not be inherited, but fairly earned? That pleasures should be legal? Us Progressives. Pursue the Happiness, kid!
Who thinks, as was shown in the Clinton years, that the only corporation that should be wealthy is our nation, not their Kings and Nobility? (Hence: "Wealth of NATIONS" by Adam Smith)? You guessed it. Its us.
Republican Consumerism, is one (twisted Post-Modernistic in my opinion) ideal borrowed by some "Academics" that are so beloved by the FOXy crowd. In the nutshell, its claims that there is no truly good system in the world. Corporations self organize into what's best for consumerism (not people). Since this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, corporations end up with most money which they use for buying puppets called Republican. Now if only I could figure out how they managed to purchase my brothers.
*Disclaimers:
Michael Moore's "Capitalism - a Love Story" is actually about consumerism.
* Rollerball (1975) in which a world managed by 5 global corporations is addicted to a violent sport. Sounds familiar? The James Caan version is great. The remake (2002) sucks.
* The family with lots of hair and no balls (please forgive my tasteless humor and let me balance it out: there seem to be no lions, tigers, or even a cat in that family, so they also have no pussies).