The DFL – as I noted earlier today – has been trying to make rhetorical hay out of mangling the context of a Mary Franson video (I wrote about this earlier) which, they say “compares welfare recipients to animals”.
The fact is, both parties see the citizen as animals.
The DFL View
In the DFL view, the citizen is an animal. A pet, at best. One that might perform a useful service, or might not, but one whose existence is defined by its relation to its Master.
And we all know who The Master is, in the DFL’s world.
Of course, when it suits them, the DFL views the citizen as a different kind of animal:
Of course, as every good master knows, pets need discipline – and herd animals are just plain dumb. Which means the masters need extra tools and power to make sure the animals get taken care of.
At election time, or when it’s time to plump up numbers to justify a program’s existence, they see you, citizen, as livestock. To be kept fed and contented until you’re needed for, er, other things.
The Conservative View
To a conservative, the citizen is a different kind of animal:
Not necessarily “wild” – there are rules, after all – but free. With liberty, dignity and free will of their own. They don’t have “masters” – their packs have leaders. And those leaders can be disposed of when they aren’t doing the job (although we humans have a more civilized way of doing it, unless the pack is Democrats and you are Jimmy Hoffa).
These animals are, nominally, on their own – with no master, there’s nobody to crack up a can of Alpo. But the pack does look out for the pack – of its own free will. None of the animals starves – because that’s the way these animals treat each other.
How would you rather your government see you, you animal, you?