I’ve just had an epiphany. At least I think that’s what they call it.
When I was working for NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public Service Company), occasionally, some boss would be so belligerent and bone headed that often times someone would say, “How would you like your daughter to come home with someone like that?”.
This (what I’m calling an) epiphany came to me last week while watching the modern Republicans in congress whining about increasing the minimum wage, and having Medicare negotiate lower drug prices for our retirees and seeing how hard headed and belligerent they were.
All of a sudden it hit me.
Since George Bush refuses to negotiate with our enemies, and since the Republicans in congress refuse to negotiate with the Democrats, and since so many companies don’t want to negotiate with their workers, how in the world could people like this ever find a spouse, and when they do, how could they ever live together in peace and harmony?
As an example, NiSource, although a fortune 500 company that pays out millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses to their top executives, are failing to negotiate in good faith with the workers at several companies that they own and are demanding gigantic concessions from their workers.
So, where’s the epiphany?
Here it is.
Now, having been married for 41 years, I know that for a marriage to succeed, some negotiations must take place on occasion. I know that a person’s politics doesn’t necessarily dictate how successful a marriage will be, but I do realize that sometimes, give and take is required to keep a marriage intact.
The question I’m pondering is this:
Are the marriages composed of Republicans more or less likely to end in divorce than marriages composed of Democrats?
My guess is, that although Republicans claim to have a monopoly on “family values” and call themselves “compassionate conservatives” and seem to think that God is also a Republican, they, at the same time, are so intolerant, and have personalities and dispositions that are not really all that conducive to the making of a happy marriage.
If anyone has made a study of this, I sure would appreciate your conclusions.
Charlie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama Dear President Obama, We greet you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. We, Bishops ...
-
Humming House :: Gypsy Django from Yeah Yeah Creative on Vimeo .
2 comments:
This was very interesting, and gives something to think about!:) My boyfriend is a Republican American and I'm New Democratic Canadian (so, fairly socialist). I will enjoy talking to him about it! ;)
I don't think all conservatives are stuck in the mud, just like not all liberals are open to new ideas. Both parties can accuse the other of being stubborn and set in their ways.
While there are some inherantly Conservative/Republican behaviours that would complicate a marriage, there are also some things Liberals/Democrats could be prone to. For example, a liberal could, by not wanting to offend anyone, avoid forming opinions or speaking up. A liberal might spend their money more freely. A liberal might have looser definitions of what is acceptable in a marriage.
It seems that two of a kind, whichever party they are, are still the best match because at least they're oriented in the same direction.
-Jen :) (who found you on Google while researching whether or not quick marriages last)
In any relationship, there have to be, as you call it, negotiations from time to time, with both parties giving up some concessions. But I highly doubt that Republicans are any more or less likely than Democrats to negotiate on any given issue.
Case in point-- Social Security. The clock is ticking on Social Security, and without changes to the system, those in my generation (early 20s) won't be getting anything back from it. Bush and the Republicans in Congress (back when it was a Republican-controlled Congress) made a major push to fix the system. One of the many options they had on the table was allowing approximately 5% of Social Security taxes to be invested in private markets, if the individual taxpayer chose this option for themselves. Even then, 95% of their Social Security tax would still go to the general fund. This is the same option which is currently already available to every member of Congress. Yet this possibility of a voluntary 5% shift to private funds was demonized by Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, as 100% privatization of the entire system.
In their opposition to that one possibility of a small voluntary shift of funds, Democrats in Congress refused to NEGOTIATE about any of the possible changes to Social Security. Today, Social Security is in the same position as it was those few years ago, and that ticking clock is a little bit closer to zero.
The majority party is always "willing to negotiate" because that's one of the advantages of being in the majority. Democrats are just as willing to negotiate now as Republicans were before 2006, because they know that when those "negotiations" come down to a vote, they have the upper hand.
As for corporations negotiating with their employees, for every one company that's not negotiating like NiSource or GM (pre-strike), there are ten or twenty more who are negotiating. But those ones solve their problems quietly and internally, and you don't hear about them on the news.
-Scott (the aforementioned Republican American boyfriend)
Post a Comment