I may have asked this question before, and if I have I apologize.
Do you think that the best representation of "bottom-up development" is individualism?
By individualism, I specifically mean a decentralized approach where the greatest amount of power is bestowed upon the individual.
I frankly would have to argue that giving the highest amount of power to the lowest level of society- the individual, IS the greatest representation of "bottom-up development."
Those of you who know me well enough understand that I pick battles mostly with individuals on the left side of the political spectrum, for mainly personal reasons (which I'm willing to discuss if anyone wishes to inquire).
So, here's another battle.
I'm witnessing that the democrat party is a big champion of something they call "grassroots" initiatives. They like it when local people get together to fight for their right to do X, Y, and Z. They call any republican attempts to do the same thing as "astroturf." I'm not arguing whether or not the tea party movement is a legitimate grassroots initiative or astroturf, but rather whether or not the democrat party is a real champion of "bottom-up development" (I use bottom-up development to mean the same thing as grassroots initiative).
If democrats, in general, support a greater centralized federal government where more power is concentrated at the top, rather than with the individual, I can't help but wonder if they're truly in support of "bottom-up development." I don't think they are, because if they were, they would have more confidence in letting the individual decide his or her own future. Instead, democrats (and republicans for that matter) generally believe that people are too stupid to invest in their retirement, too stupid to ensure their own safety, too greedy to remain charitable, too violent to possess arms, and so forth. So, rather than empowering the individual, they instead facilitate and maintain a top-heavy political structure.