Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

That’s an interesting article, Damon. I usually don’t expect that on this side of the page. :)

And I somewhat disagree with your characterization of both parties, but…

I’ve talked to some people who are longing for a Centrist Party. The only problem with that is the inherent lack of a “centrist” wedge issue to tear away voters from the two main parties.

I suspect it’s more likely that, sometime in the future - not this election, we’ll see more activity from the far left and the far right. It will be interesting to see what happens in a Senate where the Republicans need to form a coalition with the Greens and the Libertarians to get something passed.

Thanks. It is my first post on Watchblog. I’ve been onboard for a few weeks now, but with moving and the conventions I have not had time to post.

I know that that the characterizations are generalizations to a good extent, but that’s the realm I feel I have to deal with this election. The parties are so bland right now. Quietly controlled by more extreme views, but unable to be “honest” in public about their core values for fear of losing center votes. To some extent it has always been this way, but in such a close election cycle, our parties are stepping so gingerly that we can’t be completely happy with the outcome.

Apropos, I consider myself a libertarian Republican, long time friend of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and I face this issue all the time. My heart is with the libertarians, but some of the Libertarian Party planks just make it impossible for the LP to win any kind of major political slice. I wish that were not the case. The smaller parties face the same challenge. How can they attract mass voters while staying loyal to core values.

Your strategy of pointing out that both Kerry and Edwards have money will backfire on you. Everyone knows that Bush and Cheney are also very wealthy men.

Since their wealth comes from oil industries, it could also be perceived by the general public that they have a special interest in seeing the oil industry thrive. These perceptions can be validated by the amount of no bid contracts given to Cheney’s former company Halliburton and the additonal tax breaks given to oil companies from a Republican controlled Congress. It can also be argued that a continued dependence on fossil fuels makes our country less safe because of the enormous amounts of foreign oil we need to import every day. We need to explore renewable sources of energy to reduce this foreign dependence.

Also, American manufacturers and their workers are being squeezed by the outsourcing of jobs to China and other countries with cheap labor and nonexistant pollution laws and employee benefit laws. The American companies and their workers don’t want a free handout, just fairness in the workplace.

Foreign manufactures should be made to compete on a level playing field. If American manufactures must abide by pollution laws, occupational safety laws, child labor laws and have to give medical, disability and retirement benefits to their workers, then so should foreign manufacturers. The playing field must be made fair so Americans can compete with foreign companies and foreign subsidiaries of American companies.

Damon, I like your reinterpretation of Edwards’ Two Americas; however, I think this country is simply too complex (read: muddled) to split cleanly into dichotomies such as these. It is always easy to essentialize vast groups of people and it is, I believe, human nature to categorize and label. While I disagree in theory with the totalizing misapplication of these binary oppositions, I do see the positive aspects of such categorizations, which we use in attempts to deny determinism and regain social consciousness and a sense of control over our lives. I am resisting the temptation to “jump ship” by weighing the evils of the two major parties and, until a valid alternative presents itself like some beacon in the night, I want to be taken care of by the Democrats.

Kevin,

Um… I don’t have a “strategy” of pointing out that Kerry and Edwards are wealthy. I was using that to point out that, despite their wealth, they are still populists. I’m not sure where you got the impression I was trying to unveil these two as wealthy elites. Its not exactly a secret.

Helena,

Out of curiosity, did you used to go to school in Germany?

I’m a student of social and clinical psychology myself, and although I agree that these labels are largely blankets, they really must be when considering the two major parties, since both struggle with the same identity issues. Vast tents that don’t fit any specifics, etc. The New Democrats and the traditional liberals hardly fit in the same boat, but their allegiance to one another seems to stem from a basic agreement of how and to what extend the government should intervene in life. Ditto for the libertarians who still survive under teh Republican blanket, like myself.

-D

As a Democrat, I believe my government should intervene on the side of those not capable of intervening for themselves, or in need of a disinterested third party.

I think for far too long, this government has been called to shape regulations and enforcement of them to suit the selfish purpose of the already rich and already powerful, that in effect the government’s become an extension of their power. Some people might explain this in terms of the market, but I find myself doubtful at the utopian language that gets thrown around concerning such issues. The reality is, the businessmen of this country are fallible and corruptible, and so is the market. So like any part of our society, it cannot simply be left to be a law unto itself, but must be ruled by laws outside of this.

To characterize the fall of companies like Enron as Market corrections is misleading, because as long as things appeared profitable, appeared to be growing, everybody was adjusting their behavior towards Enron. Many people still are. Many people look at Enron’s downfall, and they simply see a company that wasn’t allowed to fully live out its potential. Or maybe they see people who were stupid enough to get caught.

Regardless, the truth is the same: some behavior will always have to be regulated in a system like ours. The question isn’t necessarily how much, but rather where and when. I’d say chronic errors, conflicts of interests, and malicious opacity represent places where regulations need to be brought in. Worldcom’s scandal required a situation where Citibank (later Citigroup) merged its corporate financing operations and its stocks and equities department. This required a repeal of the Glass-Steagal act. Guess who gave it to them?

Now, we can debate all night about the philosophical and business virtues of having such freedom in a company, except the practical realities set in, and we have to deal with companies that sell stock in corporations that they have a financials stake in keeping afloat. it’s the worse of both worlds.

Same with looser accounting rules. Both practices encourage behavior that is bad business for companies, consumers and investors, but good profit for those on the inside, those who often have the power to determine what they lobby for.

The Democrats want a society of responsibility, where people don’t get screwed over simply because they don’t sit high enough on the totem pole. We need reasonably safe products, clean food, water and air, good working conditions, and investment that we won’t lose money on having followed the market as we were supposed to. In sort, we want good old fashion decent social order. At the very least, we need to know that there is a bare minimum of quality to our lives that we can count on.

Past that, we’re also interested in optimizing that quality, in enabling more people to use their gifts as individuals in the wider world. It would be tragic to waste the talents of those who have the smarts to excel in a given field, but not the wherewithal to seek higher education towards that goal.

In essence, the Democrat’s economic principles are dedicated towards creating a wider range of people who can function within our economy and marketplace, allowing more of our best minds to be put to work getting us ahead.

All well and fine, but at the end of the day, if Democrats must relly on yoking a class of society (the rich) to futher said goals, they will be violating an just principle of equality under the law in order to do so. I’d love to see a flat tax system. If we had one, I’d give the green light on many more social programs. But, right now, we make some segments of society our beasts of burden, and while they can well afford it, that decision should not be anyone else’s to make. We are a little off track here and getting to a different point, perhaps a topic for another time.

actually there are those of us who would like to see science practiced outside the bounds of ideology, specifically the christian right, there are those of us who feel that our neighbors have no say over how we use our bodies or what we do for contraception, there are those of us who don’t want people to tell us how to pray, when to pray or to whom. that’s the culture war. we have some very uptight people (aka the pres) trying to control our lives. well these guys dont’ want gun control, why do they want condom control? i guess it’s a matter of religion? try reading wilhelm reich and the emotional plague. that’s what marks this administration and the followers of this administration (if they are not the cynical business mogels, like cheney) this is the totalitarian model and like we say, bush cheney…be afraid, be very afraid….

That’s just silly. I mean, I’m not familiar with any instances of the the government trying to regulat how people should pray, and trying to stop them from using condoms in private life. In government bodies, that’s a different story. There are legitimate arguments over whether or not the government should be passing out condoms as a public service, or if school prayer should be allowed (not forced) etc, arguments which, no matter how they go, don’t result in “totolitarian” control over private life. Such over-the-top rhetorical speech is unhelpful to the political debate and is, at best, childish. There are legitimate concerns over government intervention in our private lives, and many of them touch on the very issues you mention, but when people slip into bombastic rhetoric (like that old “Nazi” chestnut that I’ve encountered) it doesn’t do much more than divide us further. Cool head should debate real issues. Name calling is for the school yard.

The word yoke implies a burden. By definition, a rich person’s income is high enough to where they experience no financial burdens that they do not lay upon themselves.

For all the benefits this upper echelon expect of their government, all the influence, is it only fair that they provide greater amounts of revenue, instead of forcing the rest of us to take on a greater burden for less gain.

Also, with the concentration of wealth that these people have achieved, it is only fair that taxes be progressively of greater concentration as their share of our economic strength is. Otherwise, those of lesser means will struggle under a yoke to guarantee the power of those with greater means.

I also see it as fair, that those with the drive, the talent, and/or the determination be given a chance to manifest their gifts for their good and the country’s greater good. We cannot afford, within our economy and society, to throw away a substantial part of our human resources, just so somebody who will never want for anything in their lives can add more profit to their storehouses.

No, the word yoke does not imply a burden, it implies a relationship of forced servitude, burden or no. An Ox can be yoked to pull a bucket of water. The bucket is not a burden. Yet, in order to be yoked, someone must exercise ownership and control over the Ox. The real question is one of self determination. Taking a single penny from a person is not a burden, but it does require someone to say they have the authority to take something from someone else. This is the essential conflict of government vs. individual rights.

The argumen usualy goes that a consensus of the people makes such an act ok, or that a worthy cause justifies it. I disagree. If one man takes a a hundred dollars from me, it is theft. If a hundred men take the same amount from me and share it, it is still theft. If 300 million do so, it is still theft. The only reason we tolerate such action is because of the covenant with the government. Yet I argue strongly and vehemently that said covenant is only justified if the government, in return exercises a blind, non-judgemental equality which does not depend on a subjective evaluation of means. Who has the authority to determine “what I can afford to give?” It should be no one. The only way for the government to exercise an non-subjective evaluation is to impose upon itself a level mathematical formulation, and that formulation would translate into a flat tax.

Dice the argument anyway you want, but a progressive tax system requires a soft form of slavery if it is involuntary, and who cares if the slavery is “easy servitude.” I can afford to work three hours a day to build Pharao’s pyramid. Someone with less free time can afford to work only one hour. And yet, if I am forced to give more of myself than another, be it in percentage of time or real time, am I not more of a slave than the other man?

We reconcile ourselves with the idea that, because something is easy, it is “ok.” Well it is not. Morality, philosophical and reasonable, requires more than an easy conscience. You can impose your will on another, but just because the yoke is small doesn’t mean that the act is clean.

In our personal lives, we have a choice of how we can treat people based on any criteria we choose. The government should not have that authority when it comes to law abiding citizens. Equality under the law should mean just that. It doesn’t mean an equal life, it doesn’t mean an equal set of privilege, but it does mean that the government should demand the same and give the same to every citizen, and not make distinctions based on class, or race, or religion, or indeed, pocket book size.

Social consensus does not make an evil thing just, only tolerable.

And yet, if I am forced to give more of myself than another, be it in percentage of time or real time, am I not more of a slave than the other man?

So ideally you’d rather just have everybody give the exact same number of hours per day to pharao’s pyramid. I think that describes a progressive tax system, since people who make more in an hour would pay more. I could live with that. :)