Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I’d love to agree with you. This is what one would expect, a gradual evolution of ideologies toward an enlightened state. But I don’t think this is a linear progression. In this country rather we are diverging, moving in both progressive and regressive directions. I think Benjamin R. Barber’s Jihad Vs. McWorld illustrates the driving forces behind these moves. Most intelligent people for instance believe in evolution yet many people insist on the teaching of creationism in schools. Logic simply does not apply to many of religious right.
I think that the religious right is populated by people who fear temptation. Their sense of morality is similar to the mindset of a dieter, they know that they should not eat the ice cream, but it is in the freezer so they do. Just knowing it is there adds to the temptation. It is easier to avoid eating it if it is never brought into the house. They likewise consume the bawdiest television because it is on the television and they can’t resist it. They then blame and hate the entertainment industry for providing this “corrupting” influence they cannot help but watch.

Unfortunately the regressive are on the Democrat�s side. Regressive or true conservative positions are that the other side is wrong no matter what the other side says. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in congress are sticking to regressive rather than progressive arguments. They oppose anything that will change the statuesque. Progressive or Liberal are to work for liberating the people from government oppression rather than trying to increase it. The Democratic Party needs to state its ideas to fix the problems facing our nation and show through functioning examples of how they will succeed. Until this happens the democrats are relegating themselves to the regressive position rather than the progressive.

Stephen, realize also that some things are fine the way they are and do not need to be meddled with. In such cases it is the conservative mentality that we need to adopt.

JW Garner, as regressive as you’d like to think Democrats are, they are FAR more progressive than Republicans.

Howdy, J.W. A few points…

Unfortunately the regressive are on the Democrat�s side.

This kind of “Oh, Yeah?” reasoning only works when you proceed to enumerate in detail why your refutation of what is previously claimed may actually be the case.

They oppose anything that will change the statuesque.

That threw me for a minute, until I realized that spell checkers don’t think about grammar. Bless you and thank you sincerely for using a spell checker, but I believe the phrase you intended to use was “status quo.”

Progressive[sic] or Liberal[sic] are to work for liberating the people from government oppression rather than trying to increase it.

Oppression is not the same as providing services. (That I had to even say that beggars imagination). Most liberals firmly believe that the main purpose of having a government at all is to provide the necessary services for the society it allegedly “serves.” The measure of the quality of any civilization is in direct proportion to how well it provides for those who are unable provide for themselves. (No Schiavo inferences, please… the best civilization cannnot provide life itself. She died fifteen years ago. The fact that her remains have only just been sanitarily disposed of is irrelevant to her life, and kind of sick. This tragedy has been fodder for neo-con political machinations as well. click HERE ) When Bushies want to destroy every single service porgram, AND simultaneously increase the amount of government interferance in our personal lives, (viz, USA Patriot Act, et al) it becomes almost unbelievable that any conservative would have the unmitigated chutzpah to point a finger at Liberals and shout “J’accuse!” about engendering “oppressive” big government. This statement shows a basic flaw in reasoning, i.e., a disagreement on the definition of terms. Can’t debate without a mutual understanding of the basic definition of terms.

The Democratic Party needs to state its ideas to fix the problems facing our nation and show through functioning examples of how they will succeed.

We’ve done so in no uncertain terms, (I couldn’t finish the enormous tome, “Our Plan For America” from the Kerry/Edwards campaign in it’s entirety, but what I read, I liked, and it made beaucoup sense), but once again, the conservative pundits would have you believe that we’re merely reactionary cry-babies who automatically gainsay what any Republican says. That’s like me saying, “Republicans don’t care about anything but big business.” This is not only a vague over-simplification, it’s dead wrong. While Republicans do tend to admire personal industry and see corporate health as a positive boon to the economy, (as do we liberals), exactly HOW best to accomplish these things are where we split the bean. Vague, rash, stereotypical assumptions are not in and of themselves an argument for or against anything. The devil is in the details. I hate to keep banging this gong, but repeating wildly apocryphal, propagandist Republican boilerplate until hell freezes over does not make it true.

Until this happens the democrats are relegating themselves to the regressive position rather than the progressive.

I agree, with certain qualifiers: (1) We need to change the mistaken perception that we offer nothing as a viable alternative. The neo-cons unload a never ending bovine fecal avalanche of anti-left propaganda, so we’re looking at an uphill battle. (2) We musn’t dis-allow the efficacy of the “give ‘em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” aphorism… lest we forget, they’ve stolen WAY more rope than we ever offered. This giddy,drunk with power, fascist debauch can only end badly for a party that is topped by such monumental hypocrites. (Hey, we’ve got ours, too… look at that s**t-head Leiberman. He’s a wolf in cheap clothing if ever there was one.) In short, I don’t think that what we do or do not offer is the problem. Ever since 9/11, the top Republcians have made political hay of the dead and America’s foul, vengeful mood to further their own ends. The “in for a penny, in for a pound,” mentality in this country has a short half-life, and the good news is that Dubya isn’t bright enough to know it. History will not be kind to the man who broke every decent American precedent:

1 We never hit first.
2 We never sanction torture. It is wrong.
3 We never crap on our friends
4 We never violate human rights
5 We never violate the rule of law or our own constitution.

That’s just the short list… you get the picture. These swine are calling the tune for now, but when the American people don’t want to pay the fiddler any more, what we’ve been offering will be like balm to a troubled nation’s soul. As long as the enemies of the left control the perception of the left, we’ll be swimming upstream in that avalanche of bovine feces mentioned earlier. Vive La Resistance!

Jeff Hatmaker.

Well said. I interpret what you have said, and this in only MY interpretation, that the conservatives have become hypocritical. I think this has happened somewhat unbeknownst to themselves. Logic rules. And, almost always wins any arguement or proof. The far right has started to see the logic working against their beliefs. To the sense that they know that Desparate Housewives is bad, yet still watch. The broken logic lies in that they realize that it really isn’t that bad, nor a big deal, so they watch due to intrigue.

I think this angers and frustrates them to the point that they must try to put a stop to it, even though they know that is has potential to move society forward (not necessarily the Desparate Housewives example), even though it is logical. Not to sound like Spock, but to sound like a logician (don’t care for Star Trek.)

It boils down to; if liberalism were “a philosophy waiting to be tossed on the ash heap of history”, then history would soon be over, and none of us would have to worry about ANY of this! But, this works against our constitutionally given rights to belief what we want, learn what we want, and do what we want. Statistically, the liberal party is the one which is moving society forward (technologically, amongst other things), as you said. If they were ridden of us, then the US would be strife with war, and eventually, the world society would begin to decline (if it hasn’t already!)

Jeff, I wouldn’t give Shrub the title of precedent breaker:
“1 We never hit first.
2 We never sanction torture. It is wrong.
3 We never crap on our friends
4 We never violate human rights
5 We never violate the rule of law or our own constitution.”

1. Unless you count the Native Americans.
2. Hey, it isn’t blazoned across the frontpage but America has tortured detainees before so don’t pretend it never happened.
3. America has always been looking out for its own interests. It’s only been the last thirty or so years that we’ve been powerful enough to begin ignoring our allies.
4. Hm, slavery? Internment camps? Any of this sound familiar?
5. Many of the above examples prove that our Constitution has been violated before. All it took was a majority approval.

Socialism is no more than a religion,and all religions practice tyranny.They tell you what you can read and what you can not etc. They basically take your rights to choose away and tell you how to live and how not to live..”The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”Henery Louis Mencen(1880-1956)American editor,critic

Wade:
“Socialism is no more than a religion,and all religions practice tyranny.They tell you what you can read and what you can not etc. They basically take your rights to choose away and tell you how to live and how not to live”

Hm, not so much with buddhism. (In fact, I’ve never seen buddhists do any of the stuff you just mentioned).

Zeek-
I believe the last lines say essentially what you do. What I believe though, is that we are a civilization in transition. There are two standard responses- to try and preserve the order of the past, or turn around and try to create a new order to suit the new future.

Both impulses are curtailed by one thing: our ignorance. Whether you are Conservative, Liberal, or something else, your knowledge of the continuum of things, from past to present to future, will always be limited.

My argument is not that Liberalism is the only possible or sensible creed, though I stray dangerously close to that in being so much of an advocate for it. My argument is that it is nowhere near dead, and nowhere near a relic of the past.

Vague-
Confronted with violent forces of change, Americans have reached back towards the past, towards tradition and patriotism in a legitimate effort to remember the best things and bring them forward. I would say my seeking of full communion with the Catholic Church was brought on by the same impulse, the same need to strengthen oneself with the past against the uncertain future.

There will be a reckoning, I feel, but I don’t think it will necessarily be one that follows the clash of civilizations model. Read enough history close enough, and you’ll find that these transitions don’t follow the rules they’re supposed to. Perhaps that’s what make them transitions. Otherwise people would be better able to handle them and prevent things from changing.

I have read and studied much about the ways in which order manifests itself in the real world. The magnified errors and sensitive dependence of chaos. The hidden, complex order of synchronous systems, animate and inanimate. The interdependent holism of emergent phenomena. I don’t look for order to run in straight lines in this world, to always present itself in crystalline, logical form.

Being a science fiction enthusiast, and a avid reader and watch of material on science and technology, I cannot help but observe that technology rarely announces the real important changes it brings about, that often the shifts in society it creates sneak up on us. Also, technology often develops in ways that undermine the epic expectations people have for it. That being said, the developments are often more interesting than the expectations could have been.

Take the MRI for example. They use superconducting magnets to create a powerful magnetic field that in turn alters the magnetic field of the different tissues of the body. The different Radio Frequency signals they give off create the basis for the imaging, the contrast that distinguishes a tumor from a part of the brain. You could do this with regular magnets, but superconducting magnets can do so with no waste of current and create much stronger fields.

Eighteen years ago, the big use most people who knew about the technology thought about was magnetic levitation, or maglev technology. Imagine trains that float on air, rushing along at about three hundred miles an hour! They’ve actually run some test trains over in Japan on such systems, and seen such results. But the technology has not been made practical enough for such mobile pursuits. Superconducting magnets have no problems, though with sitting still and tweaking body tissues with those magnetic fields.

Many people don’t concern themselves with the speed at which a switch can operate. But if you’re making a nuclear bomb or a fiber-optic relay, it does matter. And if your lives are affected by the success of these folks, it will become a factor in your life.

When detonating a nuclear bomb, one must crush the core to critical mass in order to set off the reaction. This is done with explosives set around the Plutonium or Uranium in a sphere. To do it right, every explosive charge must go off simultaneously. Otherwise, the bomb fails to detonate like it should.

When switching an internet signal, the speed of the relay is important to the amount of information the cable can carry per second- the vaunted bandwidth. Our digital signals go across switches that can turn on and off trillions of times a second. Small things, but they determine whether the millions of internet users can send video or other bandwidth-hogging information over the internet.

How could that be important? Maybe in terms of the response people have to the beheading videos. Maybe in how quick certain material disseminates over the internet.

Would the WTC attack have been as galvanizing in the absence of cable and electronic news gathering? Would the terrorist even have targeted the twin towers that way, if they knew that it would be film at eleven, and not live coverage?

What if we take into account the new planes? Would their campaign of terror have been so effective if they had been forced to use the smaller jets of the eighties to do their damage?

In Madrid and Iraq the detonators are Cell Phones. In Iraq we fought a war with GPS satellites guiding our bombs and missiles. Twenty years ago, cruise missiles were a minor weapon. Now they are a mainstay of our arsenal.

Whether Republicans or Democrats lead, there will need to be an appreciation of one crucial fact: we can’t stand still, and expect the world to change to suit us.

Additionally, one point needs to be made: We need to leave the past behind. We have nothing to fear except fear itself. We must be willing to innovate, to rework the system to face the new challenges of our time. We do not need to be legitimizing monopolies, tolerating destructive conflicts of interest and indulging those who harm the public interests with their schemes and carelessness. Absolute freedom should not be given to the few at the expense of the reserved freedoms of the many.

Stephen,

You were using religion to talk about conservatism then. I was using religion to talk about religion… Sorry for the mix up.

Good Points by all. It is interesting that we can no longer tell whether the dog is wagging its tail or the tail wagging the dog. By depending on the Religious Right, the Republicans are trapped to a certain behavior that they would never have done before. It is the same for Al Queda with their identification with Jihad in Iraq. It is the ultimate irony that both the Conservatives and Al Queda must square off in Iraq as a proxy war. Who would ever have thought?

Aldous:
“It is interesting that we can no longer tell whether the dog is wagging its tail or the tail wagging the dog.”

Huh, that’s a new one… Just wtf does it mean?

Stephen:

Hmmmmm,I am not so sure you are barking up the right tree on some things. I have some issues I would like you to comment on.

1. Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s was mosttly “liberal”, but was faith based in the in African American community.

2. How come traditional liberal countries (Like Europe), are so slow in growing their economies?

3. Why do countries seem to increase their growth rates when they turn form Liberalism/socialism/communism? England and China for example.

4. Why is the more liberal democratic party sooo needful of African American votes to win, when African Americans are faith based AND Liberal?

5. Why are (this one is for fun) College professors some of the most conservative in that they are so unwilling to CHANGE, if they are liberal and so focused on facts and technology? You have to admit that College professors and educators in general are the most stubborn “don’t ask me to change” folk on the globe. I love ‘em and appreciate them greatly, but I don’t think I’m talking out of turn here!!

If liberalism were all about facts and research, and conservatives are about emotion and belief, can you please explain the NEA to me?

Craig

They don’t realize that the computer chips they use are technically nanotech because of their extremely small scale.

This is incorrect. Nanotech is specifically the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules. You are confusing nanotechnology with microtechnology, I believe.

Hey, Zeke,

1. Unless you count the Native Americans.

Oh, you wanna go there! I’m a Native person, and I would beg to point out that it wasn’t an American president that started that policy. It was Europe. Granted, the likes of Andrew Jackson, et al, didn’t do anything to hinder “manifest destiny,” but it was hardly one man’s decision. It was a manifestation of cultural and institutional hubris by it’s very nature. Superiority was assumed, and therefore, Euros & proto-americans were doing us a favor by making NDN’s white, even if it killed a few million.

2. Hey, it isn’t blazoned across the frontpage but America has tortured detainees before so don’t pretend it never happened.

I’m not saying in NEVER happened, Kee-ripes. I’m saying it wasn’t national POLICY. We’ve now got rules for how to torture that you ain’t allowed to see, and if we really don’t like you, we outsource your soon-to-be-deceased bee-hind to some country that isn’t quite as hung up on the whole, sticky “morals” thing. Culture of life my *ss!! Evil deeds happen in all walks of life, but when they become policy of the governing instution, you get some scary crap. That’s what I was getting at.

3. America has always been looking out for its own interests. It’s only been the last thirty or so years that we’ve been powerful enough to begin ignoring our allies.

Does that make it right? (That’s a rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is “NO!”) And to quote a Bond films’ theme regarding Shrub’s megalomaniacal level of international disdain, “Nobody does it better… ” Want some “Dubya” ketchup on those freedumb fries? What a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that type are. To call ‘em thugs is an insult to the group of east Indian bandits (Thugees) the word derives from.

4. Hm, slavery? Internment camps? Any of this sound familiar?

Oh, hell, you got me there. Dead to rights. I meant in the twentieth century. But your point is well taken.

5. Many of the above examples prove that our Constitution has been violated before. All it took was a majority approval.

Hey, the sheeple go where they’re herded, babe. And laws are going to be broken from time to time. It is as inevitible as the tides. What is totally WRONG is for these violations not to be punished or for the law to apply selectively based on the perverted, arbitrary whims of some degenerate head of state and his ruling junta. I was just explaining to a dear banana-Republcian friend the other night that we Liberals are sticklers for the rule of law. He seemed shocked, so thorough was his indoctrination! Continue to preach to the choir, we need to know we’re not alone.

I stand corrected… apparently there is some debate between that definition of nanotech, and another which includes all technology with at least one dimension is on a scale of nanometers (usually less than 100 nanometers.) It is this latter sense of nanotech in which modern computer chips are considered nanotechnology. I apologize, I did not dig deep enough.

Craig-
1) Faith is always imperfectly expressed in a community. To the extent that the practices encouraged by the religion (the practice of a faith in a culture) are status quo or tradition, they can be said to be part of the conservative framework of a culture. To the extent that they are new, or not mainstream, they can be liberal. Jerry Falwell and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both Southern Baptist preachers in the fifties and sixties. But Jerry saw fit to take the segregationist side, and King the Civil Rights side.

2)The answer is easy: growth isn’t everything. Socialism is a more profound part of their culture, so they are willing to give up some degree of economic competitiveness for what they see as economic fairness. 3) is more or less answered as the converse point. Except we must also see that certain command economy aspects of China’s policies have allowed them to supress the labor unions, surpress worker pay and benefits, prop up money losers, and subsidize their prices against ours. Additionally, China is one of the major investors who profits from our increasing debt.

4)The question is not very meaningful from that angle, because the answer is simple: because like any party, it needs all the votes it can get. The more interesting question is why blacks stay with the Democrats. Though more meaningful, the answer is still very simple: the Democrats have done well by them, in their view.

5)I think you mistake an unwillingness to give up well founded theory as being conservatism in the political sense. It is more like this: if you have a good theory and the facts don’t really call for change in that, you don’t get all fickle and rewrite the theory from scratch.

One thing I have to get clear is that Liberalism is not about science and technology, but our response to it. Therefore art can be part of that. Note Minority Report and its pro-civil-rights subtext (take out the precog’s visions and put in some other hazily attained evdience on a tribunal.)

Jeff, nice responses, actually had to think for a sec :P

“Granted, the likes of Andrew Jackson, et al, didn’t do anything to hinder “manifest destiny,” but it was hardly one man’s decision.”

True, but the idea of “striking first” is also not “one man’s decision.” If you recall, Shrub did have a large support group when he invaded Iraq. So, while it wasn’t because of “one man,” the Americans did strike first and have done so continually.

“I’m saying [torture] wasn’t national POLICY.”

Torture isn’t national policy NOW either. The Shrub administration just does it. Unfortunately for Shrub, it’s much harder to hide torture in the information age than it was +50 years ago. If you prefer to term this “policy,” then I would argue that it has always been America’s policy (it’s just been hiding in the closet).

“Does that make [ignoring our allies] right? (That’s a rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is “NO!”)”

Right or wrong wasn’t the point here; the point was that after the fall of the USSR, all American diplomats (including the commander in chief) began playing hardball, with friend and foe alike. You can’t really single Shrub out on this one.

“I meant in the twentieth century. But your point is well taken.”

That’s not good enough for me :P. Japanese American internment camps (aka concentration camps), did happen in the twentieth century, during WWII. Also, there was segregation well into the twentieth century, and isn’t that also a violation of human rights? The point, Shrub isn’t the first here either.

“And laws are going to be broken from time to time.”

Exactly, so Shrub wasn’t the first on THIS one either. So you can stop making him out to be some sort of revolutionary new evil :P.

Amen America will never see its true place in the global picture. Until conservatives understand that change is unavoidable without change america would not be where she is today. Conservatism serves no one and the sooner it goes the way of latin the better. We as a people must stand up And embrace the change that comes with each new decade.

Ken,

“Conservatism serves no one and the sooner it goes the way of latin the better. “

Aw… come on Ken, you don’t really mean that do you? We need conservatism just as much as we need change; they’re a balancing act. Don’t let the bad conservative-apples get to you :)

STephen:

Thank you for responding.

One thing I have to get clear is that Liberalism is not about science and technology, but our response to it.

What is ironic to me is how little liberal economies contribute to new science and technology. All one needs to do is look at
Nobel prizes to see that something is amiss.

America being less liberal than it’s European partners in democracy dominates socialist and liberal countries in creating and applying new science and technology. It seems that liberalism subdues innovation and creativity somewhat.

As for College professors and the educational community in general, my own evaluation, is that they are obviously liberal politically, but extremely conservative and resistant to change.

(I must confess that I approach this from to view point of a former School Board Member).

THEE Truth as I see it is that Liberalism needs Capitalism in order to fund Liberalism’s ideals. Capitalism needs Liberism to protect it from itself and to temper it.

I think both are reactions to science and technolgy, and we need to fight it out to discover appropriate boundries for each new day.

Am I missing something?

Craig.

Craig-
You’re missing the postwar economic boom, the boom of the sixties, and the boom in the nineties, which occured under a Democrat president, for the most part.

You’re also missing that liberalism is at its heart about freedom, freedom which requires a modicum of law and order to flourish. If people believe they will get robbed when they put their money in the stock market, badly paid when they get a job, or swallowed up by a competitor with ultra-large market-share if they dare compete, they won’t feel the motivation to go in there.

If, however, the law compells better honesty, better compensation, and more competitively free markets, then folks feel that they can take the risks, and if they succeed, build the confidence to experiment and succeed further.

The game has to have rules, if people are going to feel comfortable playing at their most fearless.

Craig,

THEE Truth as I see it is that Liberalism needs Capitalism in order to fund Liberalism’s ideals. Capitalism needs Liberism to protect it from itself and to temper it.

I think you’re confusing Liberalism with Communism here (or Conservatism with Capitalism), as people often do (which is not surprising with all the propaganda that’s been spread around). Capitalism and Liberalism are not the same thing at all, or even directly comparable, and most of the liberal-leaning people I know (myself included) are very much Capitalists.

Stephen:

I look at economics a lot, and for the life of me, I cannot see where Democrats or Repubicans hold any edge in the growth rate of the economy. If you are going to look to Clinton and the Republican congress as a great example, I will Counter with Carter and a democratic congress.
On the other hand if you go to Hoover, I will go to Reagan.

If you compare the stockmarket of the nineties, I will counter with the current housing market. So this decade we have a different bubble to pop!! Big deal!! I read a few weeks ago that wealth of American families is at an all time record!!

I don’t think liberalism is superior to conservativism or the other way around. I do believe that liberalism will lead to a slower growth rate in the economy. But as you said a few responses ago, those in Europe think that is a wise trade off, because they believe their system is more just.

I am a moderate. I vote republican mostly for moral issues. But on the otherhand, my dad was a sawmill worker. Without Unions I probably would not have grown up with good medical care and dental care. Back then however, Democrats seemed to own “family values”. It was a different world then. I am politically about the same as my community was when they voted strongly in the democratic column. Not that the parties have change my home town and I vote pretty much republican.

Your point about Liberalism and Modern Knowledge doesn’t scratch where I itch. That sounds pretty theoretical. Liberalism used to mean giving middle america what they needed to raise their family and retire with at least some dignity. The heartbeat of liberalism as I knew it was small town America instead of Hollywood California.

It would crack me up to have current day liberals walk the line in my home town with the loggers of the sixties, and explain to them why they should support the current agenda of the left. They would come off as elitist snobs.

Craig

I do mean that conservatism serves no one.

I feel that change in any realm or facet is unavoidable and to resist that change is suicidal. I think efforts are better put to managing that change than to resisting it. The one that looks to the future will with a willingness to change will have the victory.

Maybe our mutual sense of political pride gets in the way of our understanding one another. I’m college educated, but I’m middle-class all the way. I’ve lived through the ups and downs of the eighties market, and have personal knowledge of how unfair employers can be, how inaccessible healthcare is.

I remember a time where when I need to go to the doctor, I could go. But now, with the world’s finest healthcare not more than a bus and a light-rail ride away, we have to settle for only going when we have not choice, because everything’s so expensive, and our insurance doesn’t cover what it needs to.

What is it with Insurance nowadays? Of course they have the right to make money, but it doesn’t seem like you can get a decent plan unless you pay exorbinantly. And that’s not all. A close relative of mine, who once worked in the Medical Center as an administrative assistant recounted to me the case of a patient who was deep into spinal surgery when the insurance companies called up and said to stop the surgery. The Doctor more or less told them that was unacceptable. But here we have businessmen with MBAs telling MD PhDs what medical procedures they can use, the business decisions of bean counters overruling the expensive educations and cultivated knowledge of our doctors.

That is where middle America faces the future: With insurance companies that seem to have forgotten that the point of getting insurance is to have many people collect resources into one place, so that if one needs to go to the doctor, needs to have a surgery, one will not go broke paying for it. The insurance companies, the HMOs, the PPOs are not there to decide courses of treatment, but to handle money. They are not there to make limitless profit, but to make money doing something for other people.

If a doctor’s incompetence causes repeated screw ups, shouldn’t it be him and not his victims who the government sides against? Or if it’s a matter of frivolous lawsuits, shouldn’t it be the lawyers bringing the cases that get confronted, not those trying to gain justice for their injuries, disability, or loved one’s death?

And failing that, if none of these factors are involved, shouldn’t it be the insurance companies who see their practices limits if they can’t help but overcharge on their liability insurance? We don’t need a straitjacket of laws here, but we need to find the people who are actually causing the problem, and then address the regulation towards them. I say regulation, because at the end of the day, that is exactly what tort reform is: regulation of the courts, regulation of the juries, and regulation of the victims. Instead of dealing with the doctors who screw up, the lawyers who bring cases for greed and not good cause, or the insurance and HMOs who needlessly restrict doctors or overcharge their beneficiaries, the President and his allies in congress are dealing with those who have the least responsiblity.

Our health system is one of those things that have changed, Craig, one of those parts of society that have advanced far, and stand to advance even further as time goes on. The situation here is that health care has changed in some ways that we can literally and metaphorically call unhealthy.

I believe that a judicious, careful introduction of certain reforms at the right points into systems like this can do more good than letting the market’s “is” -that is, it’s current trend towards overly expensive, ineffective healthcare-become society’s “ought”. By that, I mean using market forces for the justification of a broken system that doesn’t really respond like it should to them.

Liberalism, to me, reflects the idea that the masses should not pay the price for the freedom and wealth of a few, but instead should share in it fairly. Part of this liberalism revolves around things that we do as everyday citizens, like a boss who pays his employees well, even though nothing obligates him to do that, and not pay himself exorbinantly instead.

But another part of it looks to the law. In the liberal scheme of things, people should be free to act as they please, until such time that their freedom and profit intrude illegitimately on another’s. Thus it is consistent for a Liberal to turn around and demand a raise in the minimum wage. There are people on government assistance, drawing money from the public to survive, because their employers don’t pay them enough. Should we be subsidizing the stinginess of employers in how much they pay their employees?

Should we heed their threats that they will have to lay off more people to do this, when time and again every reform in the favor of raising the incomes of the poor and middle class has been answered in the same way? Why not consider that these employees might put that money back into the economy, spending like most people in their position do?

Why is it that we focus so exclusively on the employer’s welfare, and not realize that increased wages could benefit society? Why do we have to construct our society according to the fortunes of a few, instead of the happiness and well-being of public in general?

That is liberalism to me: not a socialist attempt to beat back the realities of the market, but a willingness to employ power in a way that benefits more than just the few that have the ears of the president and the congress- a willingness to employ power judiciously on behalf of the greatest number, instead of intervening on behalf of the special interests.

The Market is a crucial part of maintaining the interests of the multitudes, but by itself it is a mindless system, vulnerable to fads, and people who forget the reasons why certain financial practices are outlawed, certain standards maintained, people who think that the investor’s money and the corporation’s income serve no greater end than their own reward for being the go-getters and competitors, the special people that they are.

I believe that there are sometimes, when in the public’s interest it’s not wise to make these things voluntary. There should limits to the power applied, but it should be applied. We cannot have a twenty-first century society run on laws more appropriate to the 19th and 20th century. Our laws should be built up in such a way that responds to the realities of our times.

That is my liberalism: dealing practically with the times we are in, doing so in a way that benefits the public at large, yet still allows people the freedom to create, to innovate, to do business and earn wealth by means that don’t cheat the consumer or the investor, that don’t present excessive threats to health and wellbeing for people, risks we wouldn’t accept from somebody acting in everyday life.

“I do mean that conservatism serves no one.”

Ok, I guess this calls for a serious debate then…

“I feel that change in any realm or facet is unavoidable and to resist that change is suicidal.”

Most things needing change will do so even under the watchful eyes of the conservative vanguard. However, when you begin forcing change for what YOU think is good, you may end up hurting instead of helping. So, you cannot always claim that change is for the better. That’s why we need conservatives to impede some of the rash decisions made by liberals.

Stephen:

On the subject of healthcare you said:

Our health system is one of those things that have changed, Craig, one of those parts of society that have advanced far, and stand to advance even further as time goes on. The situation here is that health care has changed in some ways that we can literally and metaphorically call unhealthy.

This is an area where I agree with you but probably disagree on the solution. I disagree with both the left and the right.

Let me give you an example.

I watch over an aunt of mine who is a Rosevelt Democrat!! When I found her she had been on a mountain for 58 years!! She is proud of her 14 teeth and would rather die than take a hand out from anyone especially her “screwdriver” mechanic of a nephew. (I offered to help her with her truck once). She lives on next to nothing. (less than a thousand a month).

On to medical. She has diabetis and high blood pressure, and is overweight and needs to walk more. The right would tell her to “pay her own way”. Actually she would agree with that, as she has always done so. The problem is that in her mind doctors are “too high” and so she will not pay for them unless it is serious and she is frightened.

On to John Kerry who says that all americans should have the same care as the U.S. Senate. That would be such a waste of money with my aunt. She would have no way of taking advantage or even understanding what they are telling her.

So what does she need? She needs a nurse to stop buy once a week or so to check her over and my aunt should pay a $5.00 copay. (if you don’t charge her she will think it’s charity and wont have any part). She needs to be shown patiently over and over how to take her medicine and to be looked in on.

What you and I might call “second rate” medical service is all she needs. It would improve her life greatly.

On the other hand are my parents. Good blue collar union folks. They have great medical coverage throught there Unions. The best we can do for them is leave them alone. A one payer system is a negative for them, because right now they don’t have to wait in lines like their Canadian friends do.

My solution, (are you ready to pounce?) is a two tiered system. First is a government sponsored system that takes care of the aunt Ruth’s of the world so that all they have to worry about is their $5 copay. Our citizens would get good basic care like in Canada!! They may have to wait in lines for heart surgery etc, but basically it will get done.

Second is the current system that for a fee (insurance) you can get state of the art medical coverage on demand. In other words leave the rich or affluent alone. They can afford the coverage, let them have it!!

I would like to see how much what I am proposing would cost. My thought is that it would be less than people think because of all the people without insurance using the system in inefficient ways. (Going to ER for the flu for instance). Fancy hospitals would be able to deny care for non emergency situations, since they could send them down the road to a government sponsored hospital/clinic.

What about rural situations where there is not enough volume for two tiers? There would need to be some sort of coupon system, so that there were two systems under the same roof. The government would have to contract with hospitals to provide a certain level of care.

Obviously, we should be able to take care of the Aunt Ruth’s of this world in a more humane way without hurting the coverage of the more affluent.

Craig

Cool! Discussion with some depth. The only problem is that with Kerry/Edwards ticket lost my vote by being contradictory on most topics, from the environment to the war on terrorism. It is almost like they were trying to lose. The message was different every time I heard them speak. I still would like to hear a democrat come forward and state some ideas that have not already failed somewhere else. Anything new would be great and a consistent message would be great.

By the way services (garbage pickup, utilities, street sweeping, police, etc…)is one thing; enslaving one part of the population to another (Social Security, Welfare (corporate or individual), foreign “aid”, etc…) is not a good thing, ever. It is one thing for an individual to volunteer to give to the poor and/or unfortunate, it is a completely different story when someone or something forces you to. When an individual gives the money goes where they want it too rather than just 20 cents per dollar as happens with the current welfare scheme. The other 80 cents does to fund the bureaucracy.

I must apologize the grammar and spelling issues from my last post I have a very limited amount of time unlike some it would appear.

There needs to be a good third (fourth or fifth) party that represents the people rather than the socialist/fascist goals of the democrats or republicans. By the way there is no real difference between the two concepts. Both have the goal of the few benefitting from masses. We need party who’s goal is to free the people to survive on their own merits rather than to support the age old good-ole-boy networks.

The great ambiguity is that ideas are not necessarily the root of a failure. It’s convenient for those wanting to make a political point, but the inconvenient reality is that the execution of an idea is just as important. In some cases, the idea is incompatible with the reality. In other cases, though, its just that the right approach has not been found.

The problem with any third, fourth, or ordinally subsequent party is that any party that reaches enough of a scale has had to create an organization as well as make certain compromises to get where they were going. What you need is to vote along the lines of results and likely winners, and then be willing to punish the winners if they start acting like losers. If we make practical results the selective pressure out there, not party orthodoxy, they will learn to field competent men. As long as we insist on looks and charisma alone, we are going to get a lot of airheads and scumbags coming that office’s way.