First, what is called “Right ” and “Left” is increasingly up for grabs. The winged political paradigm makes much less sense now that a significant part of the population self identifies as “libertarian,” which does not fit into the 20th Century way of looking at politics.
Saying this however we’ll go forward.
The question is whether those who advocate ever larger government have to get people “hooked” on welfare of one sort or another in order to win elections. Whether creating dependence on government is in itself a political strategy.
It’s a pretty fair question. If the government sends money in the mail, and one comes to rely on that money, would one ever vote for someone who threatens to limit or eliminate that check? Probably not.
Is it fair then to say that statist politicians might actually seek to expand government reliance simply to increase their political power?
I think the answer is obviously yes. But I’ll leave the question open, especially for our lefty readers.
And I’ll ask another related question.
Isn’t the elimination of various types of welfare 100% the ultimate goal? Isn’t that what we’d want ideally? A private sector so vital that the issue of jobs is a non issue? Isn’t that where we’d want to go, and isn’t that what we should be aiming for?
Or are there people who in fact need other people to rely on government to remain in power? Political people who need other humans to remain permanent wards of the state. Modern serfs. And that’s a kind way of putting it.
A Brazilian economist has shown a near-exact correlation between last Sunday’s presidential election voting choices and each state’s welfare ratios. Sure enough, handouts are the lifeblood of the left.
Much of the attention in Brazil’s presidential election has been on the surprise rise of Aecio Neves, the center-right candidate who bolted to second place in the space of a week in the first round of Brazil’s election last Sunday, putting him in a face-off against leftist incumbent Dilma Rousseff at the end of the month.