Chaz – you’re proving Republican ideals!

Chaz is a good guy even though he is as much a dedicated Liberal as I am a Conservative.  His post, however, seems to be a bit conflicted – he espouses in political life exactly what Republicans talk about all the time for real life: work hard, work smart, take personal responsibility for getting the job done, don’t sit on your hands – DO something and do it WELL. 

Result – you win:

Elections are Won by the Work Ethic

…All of these things are important. But what so many bloggers and pundits miss is field organizing. I’m not going to give away any secrets, but I can tell you that the Democratic party, top to bottom and bottom to top is working like never before.

…The cooperation between campaigns is fantastic and the number of volunteers and paid staff who grind it out relentlessly is staggering. I say grind it out because making phone calls, bundling campaign lit, getting up in the wee hours to do an early morning visibility, knocking on doors, entering data and preparing for GOTV is not glamorous.

You really have to have a dedicated work ethic to do all that, but if you don’t you don’t deserve to win.

Now that we are within a month of election day, the dividends of all that hard work will pay off. 

Moral: don’t work – don’t win.  If you want something, you have to work for it.  If you don’t, you don’t deserve it.  After all, there is no welfare in politics. 

Problem is, I see that this work ethic that Chaz is glorifying for political life is being undermined in real life by the growing welfare state.  Yes there are those that need society’s assistance (and that we have to supply!), but often there are those that are gaming the system (and I have met them) to live parasitically off of other citizens that try hard to be productive.  To them, I wish I could wave a wand and say "work, or starve".  People who can, should be providing for themselves.

With respect to his post, what’s the main difference between me and Chaz?  I guess it is because I separate the proper job of Government, and society at large and the notion of charity.   The result of his hard work and zeal will result in those candidates that feel sorry others and will change the rules such that the welfare state will expand. They will allow those that refuse to work to continue to work.  They will allow those that game the system to continue to do so because they can – putting resources onto the the things they want versus the things they need (or mix the 2 up – badly) because they blur the lines of distinction of government and personal charity.

Ask yourself this – when needed, don’t you find yourself working harder to provide for your family?  When the chips are down, isn’t there a sense of urgency to get out and work for something?  

But what happens, you think, for most people when that sense of urgency is no longer needed?  Isn’t that what the welfare state has done, often for multiple generations within a single family?  I know families personally that have grandparents, kids, and grandkids on welfare. No urgency to provide for themselves (although they could – I’ve listened to the scheming) or their families.  Why should they – they have all their needs met by Government handouts.