Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I consider myself to be a libertarian. I side with the libs on some social issues, and I side with the conservatives on some economic issues (and with those few who still champion federalism).

Some of my beliefs are supported by neither mainstream party, such as my belief that our illegal drug policy needs serious reform.

Should I assume that EVERY thread on this board will quickly devolve into name-calling between the “Left” and the “Right?”

Yes, Left-leaning politics in general can be traced to any number of undesirable ideologies, regimes, or commentators. The same can be said for the Right. Forget comparisons to Communism–both our mainstream political parties can be traced to unflattering past actions in this country alone.

It’s irrelevant. The United States is less “Socialist” than another other wealthy western nation, is it not? We’ll get much father discussing issues than insulting each other’s ideologies.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 02:18 AM

As a Proud Angeleno( L.A )Republican its hard to talk about issues because of Local gangs,proper authority Officials using scare and extortion tactics against political and social activism in LA with the surrounding 310 AREAS puts pressure on the city.this is bulls@#$.F@#$ INGLEWOOD Alway up to no good but I really blame WHITE Santa Monica Smucks.IT is really sad to see how truly this racist city is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: peter at January 13, 2006 06:03 AM

Hey Eric,

Good post. Pretty much right on target. The market does work best when left alone. What our liberal brothers and sisters don’t realize is that as soon as the government, on any level, gets into making economic decisions, things start going downhill. With the best of intentions, there will be corrections applied that totally screw up the process. Price controls come to mind. These usually lead to shortages and hurt both producer and consumer. Rent controls, as seen in New York City, lead to a deterioration of existing housing and put a damper on building new.

I too am a libertarian in philosophy. I don’t believe the government should very much control over my life in any way.

Actually, the founding fathers must have felt the same way. The Constitution is crafted to prohibit too much government interference with the people. However, with the philosophy that it is a “living” document, we can see how far we have strayed from the original intent.

Posted by: John Back at January 13, 2006 07:51 AM

Eric,

The first thing we have to do here is get past our fear of the word “Socialism”. Unfortunately, when most people think of the word, they relate it to the marriage of communist economy and totalitarian government that was the Soviet Union. That was the society that Marx spoke of. But just because someone is suggesting a socialist ECONOMY (or elements thereof) does not necessarily mean that they’re a Marxist in disguise. Being in favor of helping the poor, providing public education, or providing affordable healthcare doesn’t make one a Marxist anymore than advocating good roads makes one a Nazi.

The fact is, capitalism and free markets are only good for a limited period of time. Sure, it’s great for the consumer when businesses compete against each other, but eventually one business or the other will win that competition, and a monopoly will form. That is NOT good for the consumer.

Also, capitalism is very unforgiving of such sins as being born poor, suffering through natural disasters, or suffering from severe medical problems. It’s a system without compassion, without mercy. “Survival of the fittest” suits it well.

Socialism, on the other hand, has its own world of problems. No incentives and no ability to improve as an individual are the first that come to mind.

What we need (and what we have, btw) is a combination of the two. Enough free markets and commercial exchange to promote growth and hard work, with government involvement to assist the poor, provide necessities, and prevent monopolies from forming.

According to your last paragraph, Eric, it appears that we’re simply debating symantics. We’re both describing a system of free market capitalism, regulated by the government. I call it a mixture of captitalism and socialism, while you call it “liberal free market capitalism”.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 08:21 AM

Actually, the founding fathers must have felt the same way. The Constitution is crafted to prohibit too much government interference with the people. However, with the philosophy that it is a “living” document, we can see how far we have strayed from the original intent.

Yeah. Let’s go back to the “original intent”, when women couldn’t vote or own property, and blacks WERE property.

Or, we can realize that the Constitution IS a living document. It’s the foundation of a nation of, by, and for THE PEOPLE. Not a nation of, by, and for the FOUNDING FATHERS. None of the founding fathers voted in the last election (except maybe in Chicago) — BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD! The idea they fought for, and that many of them died for, is that we should have the right to determine our own government. Not that THEY had the right to determine OUR government, but that WE can choose our own.

That’s what a “living” Constitution means. It’s one that represents the people generation after generation, instead of being locked into the mores of men long gone.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 08:27 AM

How to annoy a Libral.
Work, Be Sucessful, Be Happy.
My Libral friends (yes I do have a few) hate to see that sticker on my truck.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 13, 2006 08:54 AM

Socialism and Communisim are based on the Government making choices for the individual that He or She should make for themselves,one with taxes and force and the other with FORCE.Our constitution was written to not allow either,giving the individuals the right to choose how they excercise their “inalienable rights”,the ones their former governments would not allow them to pursue,but,from the beginning of this nation some people are resorting to the ways our forefathers came here to escape.Over the years some have been elected who would have this Country go backwards to those days when the individual had no rights,but the governing bodies control every aspect of our lives,taking away our choices.Look at where we were even 40 years ago when what was unacceptable behavior and labled as immoral is now treated as an alternate morality,but is being legislated from a branch of government which according to the Constitution is supposed to JUDGE the constitutionality of the laws past by congress and signed by the president,and,if it is not allowed by the constitution then it is supposed to be “struck down”and NOT become law.If the people want the law,then we the people can work through our Congress to amend the Constitution to allow the law to be passed.The problem is,the majority does not want it so the minority tries to stack the courts with those who want that law or others like it with people who will allow their laws even when the Constitution does not allow it.They are losing their grip on the Supreme Court,and even though the majority in America has at the polls expressed they want to go in the direction of the old morality,they won’t relinquish the power back to the majority.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 13, 2006 08:58 AM

Ron Brown,

How to annoy a Libral. Work, Be Sucessful, Be Happy.

Considering the number of working, successful, happy Liberals that I know, that sticker doesn’t make much sense to me.

Maybe we should put one next to it that says something like:

How to annoy a Conservative:
(a) be nice to a non-American,
(b) be nice to a homosexual,
(c) be nice to a poor person,
(d) be nice to a non-Christian,
(e) do anything for a motivation other than religion or profit.

The name-calling can swing both ways. Personally, though, I prefer…

How to annoy Democrats AND Republicans:
Cast an informed vote!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 09:04 AM

RDAVIDC,

Socialism and Communisim are based on the Government making choices for the individual that He or She should make for themselves…

Do you mean like choice of sexual partner? Or choice of whether or not to sustain a pregnancy? Or choice of what religion to teach our children?

Or does choice only matter to you when it affects your pocketbook?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 09:08 AM

—-
Should I assume that EVERY thread on this board will quickly devolve into name-calling between the “Left” and the “Right?”
—-

ummm…. yea, looks like it.

Posted by: tony at January 13, 2006 09:20 AM

Im all for economic “progress” however i rarely believe that making more money can be considered “progress”. If we can be responsible stewards of our land, protect our natural resources such as wetlands and make money at the same time i am all for it.

However, you can’t trust the individual or the company or the corporation to do right by the environment because if you don’t impose requirements on them it won’t happen.

And if making more money means that companies do not have to pay into pensions anymore and leave the employees behind with a lifes work and nothing to show for it then i will never be for economic “progress”. I am never for the greedy CEO raping his employees so that he can steal millions of dollars. There has to be government involvement in the economy so scumbags like that don’t continue to pull ERON’s. It will happen if you get lazy and don’t pay attention or take the neccessary steps.

I think its a social misconception mixed with ignorance on the largest and saddest of scales that we place such an importance on material posessions — which are largely wasteful and environmentally harmful; and then call that progress.

Posted by: tree hugger at January 13, 2006 09:27 AM

Rob C.
Those are nothing but political “talking points.” They take issues to the extreme all in order to get votes.

“Government making choices for the individual that He or She should make for themselves

Things that should be individual “choices” such as seatbelts, smoking, drinking, porn, retirement plans, charity, guns, what auto etc… better represent unConstitutional govt intrusion.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 09:45 AM

Let’s not forget “choices” such as un-monitored phone calls.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 09:53 AM

Human sciences like economics must always factor in the monkey wrench of social and psychological complexity. According to theory, the best product naturally triumphs in the Market Place. The reality is more complicated. Sometimes the best product for one year, is the lousy one for the next. Example? SUVs versus Hybrids.

The Free Market fundamentalists can be stereotypically said to hold anything less than the bare minimum of regulation and taxation as an impingement on market forces that would do the job better. They make the mistake though of reifying the market, thingifying it if you will.

That is, they look at the market, and they see something that has an existence on its own, not something that emerges from a larger pattern. The Market exists primarily as a multi-sided guess on million’s of American’s parts. The wisdom of that guess can vary with the knowledge of whats going on and what folks are willing to do based on that knowledge.

The Market doesn’t itself come up with better solutions, people do, in response to the market, under the right circumstances. Sometimes, other folk’s guesses about what’s right creates a situation that blocks out what’s really right. Again, SUVs versus Hybrids.

I believe it is the correctability of the market that makes it better than other forms of economy most of the time. It’s not self correcting though. That’s the error of reification again. The Market doesn’t correct errors, people do. The virtue of the market is that it “finds” solutions to problems quicker - more accurately, somebody makes a solution and it catches on and things start working again.

The trouble is, error in the market is pretty tautologically defined. If you fail, you made a mistake. To say that Enron was an error corrected by the Market is to ignore the market’s opinion of Enron up to the point it began its decline. It’s also to ignore the effects of ignorance and imperfect solutions to complex problems.

The Market is good at creating optimal solutions to complex problems in context, according to what people understand about the situation. If there are big black holes in understanding about dealings, or another solution has better support and greater infrastructure, the Market is not necessarily going to provide you with the best solution. Moreover, the market, not being a real thing in and of itself, but a result of interactions not fully understood, cannot really be said to have morals, religion, or any other kind of independent principles. To appeal to the market to pump up something’s virtues is to make an Ad Populum appeal- a fallacy of logic.

The Market is our interaction, and as such, the interaction takes on our moral character. Where lacking, it lacks it. Where present, it has it. When the market is full of secret traps of unreliable accounting and conflict-of-interest driven financing, people tread with no less care than they would through any other environment of society.

While you’re busy trying to divine the will of the market, the rest of us are looking at the neighborhood its become, and are wondering whether its safe to go through there at night.

The Blue Column approach is to police the interactions, and add others to fill in the gaps that private industry can’t or won’t provide up to reasonable standards. We put the brakes on the more egregious or deceptive of practices, and punish injurious behavior, and let the system run itself otherwise.

This has always been the American way: freedoms with the constraints of the rule of law. Not everything that big business would like to be permitted to do is what it should be permitted to do. The Government has to be capable of intervening effectively as a third party, the way the police have to be effective in their interventions in our neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have eroded that power to effectively intervene, and worse declared that regulations policing finance and disclosure were unneeded, impediments to this magical thing, the market.

In making the mistake of treating the market as a real thing, and not the result of interactions, the Republicans have let the neighborhood go. If they’re not careful, they’ll make a ghetto of our economy, in their quest to avoid the ideological sin of intervention into the market.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2006 10:01 AM

I’m baffled that nowhere in this posting is there any reference to Eduard Bernstein

It’s like referring to the American Revolution without mentioning Thomas Jefferson.

It shows how little Americans know about the development of “Socialism” in the Western World.

Posted by: bobo at January 13, 2006 10:08 AM

‘How to annoy a Conservative:
….
(c) be nice to a poor person,…

I thought it was shown that conservatives give more money -out of their pockets - to help the poor….

Posted by: dawn at January 13, 2006 10:15 AM

Dave,
“Let’s not forget “choices” such as un-monitored phone calls.”

No one is monitoring your phone calls, unless, maybe you are talking to or helping the wrong people.

If MY President is monitoring my phone calls maybe I should re-think who I associate with.

Posted by: blah blah blah at January 13, 2006 10:21 AM

kctim–

Things that should be individual “choices” such as seatbelts, smoking, drinking, porn, retirement plans, charity, guns, what auto etc… better represent unConstitutional govt intrusion.

For such regulation to be “unconstitutional,” the Constitution itself needs to prohibit the states from regulating that area.

I agree that less regulation is often better, especially on the federal level–but with the exception of porn and guns (with limits), I don’t see why the state can’t regulate such things.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 10:28 AM

How to annoy a Conservative:
(a) be nice to a non-American,
(b) be nice to a homosexual,
(c) be nice to a poor person,
(d) be nice to a non-Christian,
(e) do anything for a motivation other than religion or profit.

The name-calling can swing both ways. Personally, though, I prefer…

How to annoy Democrats AND Republicans:
Cast an informed vote!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 09:04 AM

Them might annoy a Republican but not a Conservitive.
And your right casting an infromed vote is the surest way to annoy both Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 13, 2006 10:58 AM

blah-blah-blah

I bet Big Brother is already watching you, and the thought police are on your trail. You can let YOUR president listen in on you. I don’t want him anywhere near me (physically or electronically).

BTW, I love the logic: “No one is monitoring your phone calls, unless, maybe you are talking to or helping the wrong people. “
How would they know who I was talking to unless they were already listening to me?

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 11:00 AM

It is fairly clear that the link Eric is attempting to forge between liberalism and Communism has a purely pejorative motivation, no matter his pretextual argument to the contrary.

Fair is fair…

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

“A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism”

Sounds a lot like modern American conservatism, doesn’t it? I guess it has its ideological roots in fascism.

Moreover, students of history know that America, during the late 19th and early 20th century, already experimented with laissez-faire capitalism, with disastrous results for the general citizenry.

True, certain industries were remarkably ascendant (Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel), but, unlike conservative politicos, most don’t believe that the success of a society is measured along the sole axis of the economic success of business.

People during the Big Business era were exploited ruthlessly and relentlessly in terms of wage and hours, their health was compromised both in the workplace and by the goods Big Business produced, and their political clout was virutally nil.

Ah, the good ol’ days! And, of course, as America moved inexorably toward a more regulated marketplace, the hew and cry of captains of industry was that America would be ruined and would lose its place as first and foremost among industrialized nations.

As we all know, that’s exactly what happened. Wait… no, it didn’t.

David is of course completely right in his assertion that America’s success was firmly rooted in a mixture of industry and business, with social and welfare programs. Arguing otherwise is outright rubbish, as any student of history knows.

Posted by: Yossarian at January 13, 2006 11:17 AM

I wish the federal government would get out of the business of CORPORATE WELFARE. Why should any company with profits over a million dollars get one dime of federal subsidy? The Right talks about competition. I wish we had a level playing field where nimble entrepreneurs could compete w/ the giant mega corps, but with our Federal-Corporate Welfare state how can they compete? This unholy marriage between our Fed Govt. and the Souless Mega-Corp reeks of Fascism. While we’re at it, lets pull funding from the highways (an indirect subsidy to Honda, Toyota, Ford, and GM). This Big Government / Big Corporation Alliance is driving our country to ruin!

Posted by: Rick at January 13, 2006 11:32 AM

Yossarian wrote:

People during the Big Business era were exploited ruthlessly and relentlessly in terms of wage and hours, their health was compromised both in the workplace and by the goods Big Business produced, and their political clout was virutally nil.

big Business era? Look at today!! Finally, finally, there’s a dent in the Wal-Mart model of treating your employees like excrement.

The Maryland legislature overrode the Governor’s veto and now requires any employer with over 10,000 employees to either spend 8% of payroll on health care for its workers, or else provide the difference to the state’s medicaid fund. In other words the message is: “big employers: either YOU pay for health care, or you pay the TAX that we use to pay for health care.”

And NO: Wal-Mart isn’t the only employer who this law applies to. It’s just the only one whose piss-poor benefits trigger the provisions of the law.

Posted by: bobo at January 13, 2006 11:57 AM

It’s obvious that I don’t agree with the line that Eric is drawing. Rob wrote “The fact is, capitalism and free markets are only good for a limited period of time. Sure, it’s great for the consumer when businesses compete against each other, but eventually one business will win that competition, and a monopoly will form. That is NOT good for the consumer.”
I agree fully. What this comes down to is the principle of Checks & Balances. In order to have balance, I believe, there needs to be tolerance for all the parties involved. Period. I’m done arguing with you, Eric, about what I am reading behind your articles. No, I will not take back the fact that I consider your articles to be hateful. I still think that you are trying to discredit liberals. That’s just my opinion.

Posted by: Karen at January 13, 2006 11:59 AM

Calling liberals socialists and communists is not different (or less accurate) then calling neo-cons facists. So if you’re ok with that name call away.

Laissez faire econmics did not work for the french and it will not work for us. The answer is in the middle of the partie’s approaches. Let’s not forget when corporations started in this fine country of freedom they HAD to serve a public good and they were also temporary. So going “ad fonte” is not going back to laissez faire.

Posted by: chantico at January 13, 2006 12:12 PM

blah blah blah,

No one is monitoring your phone calls, unless, maybe you are talking to or helping the wrong people.

How do you know that? Are you privy to the classified records of who the government is monitoring? Because you’d have to be in order to back up a statement like that.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 12:18 PM

I wish the federal government would get out of the business of CORPORATE WELFARE.

Posted by: Rick at January 13, 2006 11:32 AM

I wish the government would just get out of the welfare business altogeather.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 13, 2006 12:22 PM

Ron Brown wrote,

I wish the government would just get out of the welfare business altogether.

If businesses paid people enough you wish will come true. But then — GEESH — that goes against free markets.

Posted by: bobo at January 13, 2006 12:27 PM

“I wish the government would just get out of the welfare business altogeather.”

Ya know, I happen to agree with you there. I was talking to some friends the other day, and we decided that if government was run by blue collored workers instead of the rich, we would probably limit welfare greatly, and only extend it to those who actually need it. Mostly because laborers and skilled tradespersons understand better than most the value of a hard day’s work, and they would kick America in the behind and say ‘get back to work’. As opposed to business management, where ‘business golf’ is actually put forward as legitimate work.

Posted by: ant at January 13, 2006 12:30 PM

Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is—the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

—-Winston Churchill Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2006 12:33 PM

Those opposed to welfare must, ipso facto, be opposed to the billions Congress is spending on Katrina rebuilding and aid to victims. For a person unemployed through outsourcing or inadequate education is no less a victim than a person who lost their home and posessions to Katrina.

Think about it. A government that takes taxes from its people but disregards their plight will not be viewed as a democracy. And of course, eliminating taxes and letting every person fend for themselves also has a name, and the name is Anarchy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2006 12:38 PM

The steady, designed decline of pure
Americanism over the last 55 years has produced a clinking - clanking collection of colligenous politics blinded to the truth of history. Inch by inch American’s have caved to the emotional treachery of the left, leaving America a fat, bloated wounded animal. The lies and deceit of the left have allowed laws to flourish, which have failed to protect America from it’s enemies. They are the enemy within.

The commu-left has made insensitivity their friend, developing “tolerance and diversity” as the banners of their maligned sense of socialism, hoping in the end to create weakness. However, the fresh change of freedom is in the air, as we have much yet to fight for!

The acts and dreams of the social left continue to grow weak, and as they do, America will prevail, beginning at the voting booth. America has begun to wake up out of the naval-gazing haze of apathetic taradiddle. And as the crust of sleepiness is removed from our eyes, we see the enemy, and he will be defeated.

Posted by: Mundo at January 13, 2006 12:39 PM

Did Mundo just copy and paste some quote from Sen. Joe McCarthy from congressional records of the Red Scare hearings? Inquiring minds want to know?

Does anyone doubt the appropriateness of Mundo’s comment in this column? I don’t. And folks project hate as a commodity of the left. Now that is laughable absurdity in the extreme.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2006 12:54 PM

Rob,
“How to annoy a Conservative:
(a) be nice to a non-American,
(b) be nice to a homosexual,
(c) be nice to a poor person,
(d) be nice to a non-Christian,
(e) do anything for a motivation other than religion or profit.”

(a) be nice to a non-American
By allowing people to violate our immigration laws?! Don’t worry, the conservatives and libs are doing just that.

(b) be nice to a homosexual
By not violating heterosexual rights with the marriage between a “Man and Woman”; the homosexuals have plenty of rights other than that one.

(c) be nice to a poor person
More money was spent for the poor under this President than any other. And, it was the Democratic lead administrations (Mayor, Governor) that failed the Katrina victims, remember that.

(d) be nice to a non-Christian
Jews, Hindus, Non-terrorist Muslims ( the few that exist), etc. are all treated with respect. It’s the attack on Christianity that is the Problem; just ask the “Patriotic” Nationalists in the ACLU about that.

(e) do anything for a motivation other than religion or profit.
How about contributing to charities or helping out in the community without the gov’t making you do it!

The fact is, the conservatives are more positive than the liberals; just take a look at how they’ve been positioning themselves the past few years. The libs have positioned themselves to the point that “anything that’s good for America, is bad for them and anything good for them, is bad for America”. Think about it.

The War:
Bad for America that our troops are dying; good for libs b/c the higher the US death toll the more of a case they can make against the war.

The Economy:
Bad for America that the jobs report is low and inflation high along with unemployment; good for libs, they can blame it on Bush and say it’s his policies that are doing it.

National Security:
Good for America that we’ve been eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and holding secret CIA prisons to combat this enemy (without them knowing) in order to win this war and prevent future attacks; bad for libs that the “appeasement” stratagem can’t work b/c Americans are taking the tough and “preemptive” approach. Basically, it exposes and debunks the “appeasement” strategy with each victory.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 12:58 PM

rahdigly,

I’m sure you probably wrote something else worth reading, but I find it hard to get past this part:

Non-terrorist Muslims ( the few that exist)

Do you really believe that the majority of Muslims are terrorists? If so, then you need to meet a few more Muslims. Judging all of Islam on the actions of a few terrorists is like judging Christianity on the actions of David Koresh. It’s an ignorant, bigotted thing to do. Besides, historically speaking, Christians have killed more people than Muslims have — usually for no crime worse than worshipping God in the “wrong” way.

It’s the attack on Christianity that is the Problem; just ask the “Patriotic” Nationalists in the ACLU about that.

What attack on Christianity are you talking about? I’m a Christian myself, and I’ve seen no such attack.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 01:24 PM

Rob,

The War on Christmas; taking god out of the Pledge of Allegiance; schools condemning teachers for using the Declaration of Independence b/c it has “endowed by our creator”. That’s just a few examples of the attack on Christianity in America. You must not be Catholic, b/c all of December each Mass the priest talked about the attack on saying “Christmas” and how we should be allowed and “proud” to say Christmas in public.

As far as the muslim/terrorist comment, I was just taking a little jab at the PC crowd and the islamofascists. Of course I don’t believe that all muslims are terrorists; we have millions of Muslims that live in the US and they are good, hard-working citizens and I certainly respect them. The fact that they (US Muslims) haven’t waged war against us for going into Afghanistan and Iraq (and hopefully soon in Iran) is a sign that we’re doing something right.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 01:51 PM

Someone kept you from using the word “Christmas” in public?

What an absurd talking point.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 01:57 PM

Mattlaw
Thanks for reading that. I’m glad somebody caught it.
I would have to then ask how those “choices” are any different than the pro-choice reasoning?
If the govt can’t tell a woman what to do with her body, then why can they tell everybody else what to do with theirs?

Porn and guns are both protected by the Constitution. Any regulation of them is unConstitutional.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 02:11 PM

Kctim–

Thanks for reading that. I’m glad somebody caught it. I would have to then ask how those “choices” are any different than the pro-choice reasoning? If the govt can’t tell a woman what to do with her body, then why can they tell everybody else what to do with theirs?

Well, you’d have to read the various abortion decisions to see why a constitutional right lies in that practice, but not in others.

I don’t necessarily buy the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, but consider the fact that it’s based on ‘Griswold.’ I can’t see that decision ever being overturned. Can you imagine the reaction of American public today were they told that the State could control their access to birth control?

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 02:18 PM

Eric,

So should we give China backs its 295 BILLION dollars in trade bonds? And if so, how do you plan on paying for this war? I know the typical conservative answer is credit, but for us that want a balanced budget, what do you suggest?

Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2006 02:24 PM

Can you imagine the reaction of American public today were they told that the State could control their access to birth control?

Which is why conservatives (and liberals too) should “be careful what you wish for.” If you go too far with getting what you want, you can get a backlash in a big way. I think the argument raised in other places that the Roe decision help usher in the Christian Fundamentalist infusion in politics is an example of this.

Posted by: bobo at January 13, 2006 02:25 PM

matt
“Well, you’d have to read the various abortion decisions to see why a constitutional right lies in that practice, but not in others”

Abortion is none of my business and doesnt interest me in the least.
Like the majority of Americans, I dont have the time to read those nor do I want to. Personally, I dont think its any of my business.
Any way you could give me a short idea of why?
Why the govt has no business telling a woman if she can or cannot have an abortion but can force me not to smoke etc…?
The abortion issue has two lifeforms, mine only affects one, me.
At least when I dont wear a seatbelt or smoke or own a gun or whatever, nobody else is harmed.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 02:33 PM

matt,
“Someone kept you from using the word “Christmas” in public? What an absurd talking point.”

Where have you been? Stores tried to use happy holidays; some even tried to sell “holiday” trees instead of “CHRISTMAS” trees. Those businesses got hurt pretty bad with that, too. The consumers spoke up by going elsewhere; that’ll teach them for waging war. He! He!

“Can you imagine the reaction of American public today were they told that the State could control their access to birth control?”

Most people would prefer the states deciding rather than the federal gov’t. And, the Roe v. Wade will be overturned b/c it’s bad law; just like Dred Scott was bad law, it was overturned. That won’t abolish abortions, it will just put in in the hands of the states.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 02:35 PM

Where have you been? Stores tried to use happy holidays … that’ll teach them for waging war.

How a business using the word “holiday” constitutes a “war” is beyond me.

Happy Martin Luther King Day rahdigly !

Posted by: bobo at January 13, 2006 02:42 PM

“Where have you been? Stores tried to use happy holidays; some even tried to sell “holiday” trees instead of “CHRISTMAS” trees. “

I know. I was so effected by this irresponsible attack on christianity that I almost stopped being a christian. Phew thank goodness for the boycotts, nothing spreads christianity like indignation. Still I fear for those christians not as strong as I.

Sarcasm aside, when christianity becomes more concerned with what other people call trees instead of loving your neighbor and keeping peace in your heart that is a good way to tell that maybe certain sects have gone awry.

Posted by: chantico at January 13, 2006 02:43 PM

Abortion is none of my business and doesnt interest me in the least. Like the majority of Americans, I dont have the time to read those nor do I want to. Personally, I dont think its any of my business.

Well, it’s a legal decision of our Supreme Court … so I’d say it is “your business.”

Basically, the Court determined that there is an implied right of privacy located within various part of the Bill of Rights and incorporated against the states by the 14th amendment. This was how the decision came down against state regulation of the use of birth control by married couples, and it was extended to include abortion here.

It’s more complicated than that and I can’t really briefly explain it … but when a constitutional right is recognized, then the government must present some sort of compelling interest to curtail it.

This argument has basically been affirmed in different ways throughout the other abortion cases.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 02:46 PM

Try and deny the attack on Christianity; it’s not going to work. Just like the NSA wiretapping is not working for the anti-Bush crowd. You guys better figure out who the enemy is! It’s not Bush; it’s not Christians. Wake up, people!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 02:47 PM

Stores tried to use happy holidays; some even tried to sell “holiday” trees instead of “CHRISTMAS” trees. Those businesses got hurt pretty bad with that, too. The consumers spoke up by going elsewhere; that’ll teach them for waging war. He! He!

…so these stores were being forced to say this? By whom?

Were those stores “hurt pretty bad?” Do you have evidence of this?

Most people would prefer the states deciding rather than the federal gov’t.

It’s protected by the constitution. NO ONE can touch it.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 02:49 PM

rahdigly,

The War on Christmas;

Someone declared war on a holiday??!! It must have been a Republican… they’re good at declaring war on intangible objects.

taking god out of the Pledge of Allegiance;

Did that actually happen? Was it upheld by higher courts? Didn’t think so.

Stores tried to use happy holidays; some even tried to sell “holiday” trees instead of “CHRISTMAS” trees.

How dare someone try to sell a Celtic yule-log as a “holiday tree”! Don’t they know that Christians rightfully stole that symbol?

I don’t consider using the word “holiday” as being an attack on a holiday. If anything, it’s a defense of them all.

If someone decided to use the word “holiday” instead of “Christmas”, that’s a personal decision — it’s not a war.

I keep hearing people talking about the “war on Christianity”, and how the rights of the majority are being trampled. I still fail to see any evidence of it. We Christians have the same right to practice our religion as anyone else. What we DON’T have is the “right” to have the government practice it for us. Teaching religion in school, posting religious documents in government buildings, all the trappings of state-sponsored religion… that’s a right we DON’T have.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 13, 2006 02:53 PM

“Actually, the founding fathers must have felt the same way. The Constitution is crafted to prohibit too much government interference with the people”.

If this true, maybe corporations should get back to doing as our founders intended as well and allow the American people another chance at self governance.

USA,Inc. is not what they intended.

Posted by: dtom21 at January 13, 2006 02:53 PM

See how quickly a real disscussion on agendas becomes a name fest! I guess the rules of name calling do not apply here?

Posted by: jerry at January 13, 2006 03:14 PM

Actually, God was never in the original pledge. Some Christian coalition put it in there. It should go back to it’s original.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 13, 2006 03:49 PM

rahdigly,

“Where have you been? Stores tried to use happy holidays; some even tried to sell “holiday” trees instead of “CHRISTMAS” trees. Those businesses got hurt pretty bad with that, too. The consumers spoke up by going elsewhere; that’ll teach them for waging war. He! He!”

Somebody waged war with trees?

Oh MY Gawd!

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 03:56 PM

mattlaw:

Should I assume that EVERY thread on this board will quickly devolve into name-calling between the “Left” and the “Right?”

Where is the name calling you speak of? I am talking about substantive issues. You may not agree with my premise but that does not make it name calling. Do you ever take any other post to task for ‘name calling’, for instance when Bush is called a dictator who is intent on creating a police state? Hello?

Rob,

The first thing we have to do here is get past our fear of the word “Socialism”.

I think perhaps that it is those on the left who fear the word socialism. Or else why call it ‘name calling’ to mention it?

Unfortunately, when most people think of the word, they relate it to the marriage of communist economy and totalitarian government that was the Soviet Union. That was the society that Marx spoke of. But just because someone is suggesting a socialist ECONOMY (or elements thereof) does not necessarily mean that they’re a Marxist in disguise. Being in favor of helping the poor, providing public education, or providing affordable healthcare doesn’t make one a Marxist anymore than advocating good roads makes one a Nazi.

I addressed this directly:

But, my point is not that supporters of Universal Health Care are committed communists, it is that the concept of Universal Health Care and the problem it is meant to solve is based largely on flawed socialist arguments. It has nothing to do with whether or not the average Democratic voter consciously supports a Soviet American Republic, in fact, they most definitely do not and don’t even want to think of themselves as remotely doing so, such is the utter failure of that ideology.

There is a disconnect between the philosophy with which you arrive at the conclusion that the ONLY way to care for the poor, provide for education, and affordable healthcare is through government. This is socialism. Pure and simple. It is why Democrats continue to say that Republicans don’t care about the poor because they do not want to increase government spending for some agency.

The fact is, capitalism and free markets are only good for a limited period of time. Sure, it’s great for the consumer when businesses compete against each other, but eventually one business or the other will win that competition, and a monopoly will form. That is NOT good for the consumer.

Also, capitalism is very unforgiving of such sins as being born poor, suffering through natural disasters, or suffering from severe medical problems. It’s a system without compassion, without mercy. “Survival of the fittest” suits it well.

Again, this is an erroneous assumption based on the past 100 years of socialist propaganda. The only permanent monopolies are those that have the assistance of government, the assitance of force. A free market by definition means that you can compete no matter who you are.

Is capitalism a heartless system? But socialism isn’t? Capitalism has no feelings, people do. Institutionalized caring is not caring.

According to your last paragraph, Eric, it appears that we’re simply debating symantics. We’re both describing a system of free market capitalism, regulated by the government. I call it a mixture of captitalism and socialism, while you call it “liberal free market capitalism”.

The difference is in the standard for regulation. It is not simply a matter of semantics. Those who advocate more overt socialism never see a problem with the application of socialism only capitalism. It is essentially like a chinese finger trap, where you can put your fingers in but cannot pull them out.

That’s what a “living” Constitution means. It’s one that represents the people generation after generation, instead of being locked into the mores of men long gone.

This is relevant to the conversation: How living is it? What objective standards do you apply? If it’s completely relative then we can apply anything we want- why even have a constitution?

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 04:02 PM

Rob,

Do you mean like choice of sexual partner? Or choice of whether or not to sustain a pregnancy? Or choice of what religion to teach our children?

Or does choice only matter to you when it affects your pocketbook?

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you the first and third items, but not on the second. I don’t see it as the government’s role to regulate sexual choices, nor religious ones. But because I believe preganancy is a human being at some point I cannot agree that killing a child is an expression of freedom. This is an objective standard. Meaning that we can both look at the standard see where it follows.

To support abortion throughout a pregnancy you must believe that it is not a human life until it is born. I disagree with that standard.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 04:07 PM

treehugger,

However, you can’t trust the individual or the company or the corporation to do right by the environment because if you don’t impose requirements on them it won’t happen.

I agree in the same sense that I agree that my nieghbor cannot dump garbage in his front lawn and let it pile up. It affecst me and my nieghbors. This is a perfectly acceptable requirement.

I think its a social misconception mixed with ignorance on the largest and saddest of scales that we place such an importance on material posessions — which are largely wasteful and environmentally harmful; and then call that progress.

You disagreement with materialism is not an objective standard on which to base law. The fact that harm may be done though is.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 04:14 PM

Stephen,

According to theory, the best product naturally triumphs in the Market Place.

According to your theory perhaps. But this is not what market theory says at all. Which product is best is a value judgement made by those who purchase the product at the time, according to factors relavant to them at the time.

We’ve had this conversation before and I realize that you have to find a way to your justify your position that government can always fix what you see as the inevitable market failures. I think you are working backwards from that premise. That the market fails and government must prevent market failures.

In making the mistake of treating the market as a real thing, and not the result of interactions,

This is a mischaracterization. What I have always explained was that the market was the result of aggregate choices.

The main error I see in your view is that you seek no restraint on how far these regulations can or should go. What definition do we have of what a ‘market failure’ is? There are too many calls for government intervention when there is no need or a weakly perceived need.

With your strategy is there ever a situation where the government gets out of whatever business it takes over? Since there isn’t, and since there is always a ‘failure’ somewhere else what you have is an inevitable march toward the government controlling ever more parts of the economy.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 04:37 PM

Rob, Matt and Rocky,

I love how some of you out there are actually trying to argue that there isn’t a war on Christianity (lead by the ACLU). The point of the war on Christianity is that one, it is real and two, the stores that did that ridiculous crap (calling it a holiday tree) paid the price b/c the consumers (most of them christians) spoke up and (basically) put an end to that crap. The companies weren’t forced to do that; however, the people spoke up and stopped it, just like they spoke up in November 2004 and voted for Bush. Ha! ha!

Now, you still want to whine and cry about Bush and his policies; and yet, no word is mentioned about Iran. They thumbed their noses at the World; called for the Jews to be “wiped of the planet”; and pulled the IAEA seals on their nukes (THAT THEY’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!). They just keep thumbing their noses and you guys want to talk about Bush. Good job everyone. Next Presidential election, make sure you give me your names so I can vote for you. Great leaders. Ha! ha! Yeah, right!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 04:47 PM

Yossarian,

It is fairly clear that the link Eric is attempting to forge between liberalism and Communism has a purely pejorative motivation, no matter his pretextual argument to the contrary.

I don’t agree at all. In fact, it is born of the accusations that conservative “don’t care about the poor” because they don’t support liberal programs. Democrats actually said that Republicans wanted to “starve children and old people” because they wanted to slow the rate of budget increase in some programs. That is pejorative. It is also based on the premise that the only way to care for the poor is through government spending.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

“A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism”

Sounds a lot like modern American conservatism, doesn’t it? I guess it has its ideological roots in fascism.

This is actually an accusation that is leveled all the time toward ‘the right’.

In fact it is precisely descriptive of Roosevelt’s New Deal. You need to do some research on fascism, my friend. It certainly doesn’t describe free market capitalism at all. This is what I mean about the erroneous definitions of marxism.

David is of course completely right in his assertion that America’s success was firmly rooted in a mixture of industry and business, with social and welfare programs. Arguing otherwise is outright rubbish, as any student of history knows.

This is demonstrably false. If socialism were an engine of prosperity we would expect that it would be able to produce prosperity outside of and without the assistance of capitalism. Since it cannot, and since capitalism itself can operate and produce prosperity without socialism, we must conclude that socialism is a subtractive element. Like a parasite it can only exist in conjunction with a healthy host. The larger the role that socialism takes the more it drains the host.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 04:52 PM

Eric,

What I don’t understand is why, every one of your posts gets back to;
liberals = communist/socialist/whatever?

What exactly is the point of all this?
Are there no other subjects that you are versed in?

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 05:01 PM

Rahdigly,

“I love how some of you out there are actually trying to argue that there isn’t a war on Christianity (lead by the ACLU). The point of the war on Christianity is that one, it is real and two, the stores that did that ridiculous crap (calling it a holiday tree) paid the price b/c the consumers (most of them christians) spoke up and (basically) put an end to that crap. The companies weren’t forced to do that; however, the people spoke up and stopped it, just like they spoke up in November 2004 and voted for Bush.”

Other than you and Bill O’Rielly there might be two or three people out there that actually give a rat’s ass about this.
This was a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 05:05 PM

Karen,

“…but eventually one business will win that competition, and a monopoly will form. That is NOT good for the consumer.”

I agree fully. What this comes down to is the principle of Checks & Balances. In order to have balance, I believe, there needs to be tolerance for all the parties involved.

It’s correct that there needs to be checks and balances. As I said, capitalism requires it to function. However, I do not agree with socialist remedies to socialist definitions of capitalism. There is no need for the government to take over entire industries or services.

There isn’t a natural tendency toward monopolies. Again, a perfect example of marxist theory evident in liberal thinking. Marxism’s main theory is that capitalism will destroy itself by consolidation. Yet it doesn’t work that way.

With the worst examples of the capitalist “Robber Barons” how did they maintain their measure of monopoly? They did so by bribing politicians. Not through the free market. They had to resort to government intervention to keep out competitors. This is not capitalism, it is arguably the same thing that many liberals often times propose- government partnerships with business. Look at Europe. Do you see government owned industries with monopolies?

While referring to the growing concentration of capital, the Manifesto did not draw the necessary conclusion in regard to monopoly, which has become the dominant capitalist form in our epoch and the most important precondition for socialist economy. Only afterwards, in Capital, did Marx establish the tendency towards the transformation of free competition into monopoly. It was Lenin who gave a scientific characterisation of monopoly capitalism in his “Imperialism.”

Here I am trying to expose you to a different point of view from your own and what is your reaction?

Period. I’m done arguing with you, Eric, about what I am reading behind your articles. No, I will not take back the fact that I consider your articles to be hateful. I still think that you are trying to discredit liberals. That’s just my opinion.

Karen, I hope you are not done arguing. That would be a sad end to the conversation. What’s the purpose of free speech if not to debate and learn, and even disagree?

I can’t help it if you take my point of view for hatred because you disagree with my conclusions. If you thought about it you would realize that I am trying to discredit liberals, but not by slander. Just as virtually every post in the blue column is an effort to discredit Bush. Will you call that hatred too?

I see a connection between the core left, which has been profoundly influenced by socialist doctrines, and many of the popular liberal policies supported by many who do not see themselves as socialists. How does that make my thoughts hatred?

I have a friend, (also the father of a friend, but I consider him to be my friend as well) who graduated from Harvard, taught literature and journalism all his life and retired recently. He is definitely a liberal. He believes in the New Deal, JFK, the Great Society, etc. We completely disagree about everything. I don’t hate him. I love the guy. And I love talking to him. We have a great time debating and talking. When he says Bush is the worst President ever I don’t feel as though he hates me either.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 05:21 PM

Rocky,
“Other than you and Bill O’Rielly there might be two or three people out there that actually give a rat’s ass about this.”

Actually, there are plenty of people that do care and are offended, you just don’t want to admit it.

Now, I noticed you skipped the Iran comment. What’s a matter Rock, are you afraid to give an opinion? That’s something that people better give a “Rat’s A$$” about b/c it’s real and it’s imminient.

So, Rock, let’s try this again. Step up to the plate:

“Now, you still want to whine and cry about Bush and his policies; and yet, no word is mentioned about Iran. They thumbed their noses at the World; called for the Jews to be “wiped of the planet”; and pulled the IAEA seals on their nukes (THAT THEY’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!). They just keep thumbing their noses and you guys want to talk about Bush.”

What would you do about Iran, Rock?! This ought to be good…

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 05:37 PM

“Now, you still want to whine and cry…They just keep thumbing their noses and you guys want to talk about Bush.”
Said the man complaining about Holiday Trees.

Posted by: chantico at January 13, 2006 05:44 PM

I see that Eric is still worrying his favorite old “all liberals are communists” bone. Stephen Daughtery kicked his debating butt so badly in his previous thread (which is in many ways similar to this one) so he felt the need to try, try again — although not especially afresh, I notice.

As usual Eric feels a burning need to sneer at men like Michael Moore, or Harry Bellefonte, or Kurt Vonnegut, or whoever — just anyone he doesn’t like that is on the left — never realizing that in reality they are as fully and authentically American as he himself is, despite his distaste for their political stance or personal opinions. And he has no shame or conscience about claiming ultimate superiority for his party and their ideologies, while trash talking a woman like Cindy Sheehan who happens to be the mother of a Marine who died fighting in America’s name. She must be the enemy, simply because she has the audacity to criticize the actions and policies of a presidential administration who started a pre-emptive quagmire of a war by mistake. A failed, incompetent and corrupt president and administration, as well as a majority in Congress who people like Eric feel they must vociferously defend and make excuses for constantly.
It could be kind of laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic and devisive and harmful to the mindset of the country.
Interestingly enough, articles like the one above aren’t usually the kind that people on the Left or Center in WB tend to write. No, they don’t waste their time writing shrill screeds which rail against far-right figures like William F. Buckley, Bill Cristol, or Rush Limbaugh. Nor do they attack the whole conservative oeuvre trying to raise questions about their patriotism, or try to lie about, or chip away at the archaic foundations of conservative philosophical thought in America. Instead they tend to talk about important issues and current events and whatever scandals unfold (which with this administration has kept them extremely busy!). Or being concerned by such things, the center column might focus on Constitutional issues or the failings of our two party system, while the Left being progressive by nature, might bring up issues about America’s future and what must be done to make it better.

In closing, and as a way to answer the title of this article “Insulting Communists and Liberals”, I’d like to leave a link to a much better piece written by someone on the Left:
Bullying and Threats Can’t Smokescreen the Truth

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2006 05:51 PM

Eric,
The fundamental comparison of this post is wrong. It would be more useful to refer to Locke or Rousseau, or investigate the dichotomy personified by Thomas Jefferson & John Adams.

Jefferson advocated a working man’s America, where merit and work and innovation earned success. Liberal principles begin with this concept, and use the success of the group as a whole to provide a safety net. Thus, merit and work and innovation are rewarded, and the basic moral concepts of compassion and Christian kindness are observed.

Adams advocated an aristocracy, where birth and wealth meant success. Conservative concepts begin with this concept, and use success as a net to keep the ignorant, undeserving rabble ensnared. Thus, merit and work belong only to those who inherently deserve it.

Look at a list of ‘successful’ countries today, and how closely they match the aristocratic vision of John Adams. ‘Deserving’ countries are consistently colonialists, who made their wealth and claimed the land through brutual exploitation of others abroad, and genocide of native peoples at home.

Posted by: phx8 at January 13, 2006 05:59 PM

Chantico,
“Said the man complaining about Holiday Trees.”

Nice debate, Chantico. That’s actually a classic ad hominem retort that many liberals use; you sure you want to be in that company?

Still didn’t respond to the Iran problem? Or, are you going to be like most liberals and do nothing, offer nothing, then attack the Republicans when they (actually) take action?! Hmmm….

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 06:04 PM

Adrienne, Liberals.. Do you ever read your posts? You have no ideas on witch to debate. Read your post, not one idea, not one fact, there is nothing there. Oh yeah there it is, Bush is to blame for everything wrong with this world. What a strong case you made..

Posted by: philipz at January 13, 2006 06:08 PM

rahdigly,

“and pulled the IAEA seals on their nukes (THAT THEY⒅ NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!).”

And you know that how?

They resumed their research Tuesday. That is when they took the seals off their research facilities.

“They thumbed their noses at the World; called for the Jews to be “wiped of the planet””

Me, I think that we should let Israel handle them. They haven’t threatened us, and if you think that Iran would be a cakewalk to invade, hey, your welcome to try, but you better bring lots and lots of body bags.

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 06:09 PM

“You have no ideas on witch to debate.”

Right, because there was nothing there to be debated. Eric’s article is just another attack upon liberals, based upon lies and fallacies that he endlessly repeats.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2006 06:31 PM

“Still didn’t respond to the Iran problem? Or, are you going to be like most liberals and do nothing, offer nothing, then attack the Republicans when they (actually) take action?! Hmmm….”

Yeah that’s right call me a liberal. That’ll make it easy for you, everyone who disagrees must be a durn librul.

You want to know what I think about Iran? Very well. I’ve said it here before I opposed the war in Iraq because everything that Bush and Co. were saying about Iraq Iran was much more guilty of. If they had said in 2002 Iran instead of Iraq I’d say, “OK!” I’ve said from the beginning Iran should be our focus, we can easily prove the terrorist links and WMDs for Iran, Iraq? Not so much.

So don’t come to me whining about how we’re not doing anything in Iran. I said do something from the beginning, don’t take out Iraq, go to Iran if we took out Iraq then we’d have to ignore Iran at our peril. But NOOOOooooooo, no one would listen then, ESPECIALLY the conservatives.

Now we’ve found no WMDs in Iraq, Cheney says there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and Iran’s gotten more powerful, our military is stretched thin, and the american people are saying “Bush, you called wolf before and look where it got us. Why should we believe you now?”. Gee, looks like I was right doesn’t it?

Bark up some other tree raggy. That wont fly with me.

Posted by: chantico at January 13, 2006 06:32 PM

Wow! Nothing like a good exposure to get a dialogue going. Unfortunately, some of our writers want to engage in a battle of wits and are only half prepared.

Rob C. Either you have neglected to keep up on current events in the real world or you are deliberately ignoring them. The war on Christianity is real. School systems in all parts of the country have passed rules regarding the wearing of “inappropriate” garb. Not obscene T-shirts but T-shirts with Christian messages. Read the common newspapers for a couple of weeks and see what is going on.

Also, your characterization of the Constitution as a “living document” effectively removes it from having any power in our system of law. The Constitution and amendments provide a bedrock for our government. Without something to anchor to, we have no stability.

As a libertarian, I firmly agree with the 10th amendment: All powers not specifically granted to the Federal govenment are reserved to the states. If we could really accept that as true and in force, the size of government would decrease drastically along with our tax bills and paperwork.

Unfortunately, folks on both sides of the aisle are too wrapped up in a powerful federal government to even try to dismantle it.

We have had one revolution in this country to get out from under a repressive government. Will we have another?

Posted by: John Back at January 13, 2006 06:53 PM

rahdigly,

Nice debate, Chantico. That’s actually a classic ad hominem retort that many liberals use; you sure you want to be in that company?

Actually, rahdigly, it’s just a classic case of you being unable to swallow the same medicine you dish out.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 13, 2006 07:14 PM

Chantico,
“Yeah that’s right call me a liberal.”

I didn’t call you a liberal, I said “Are you going to be like most liberals and do nothing, offer nothing, then attack the Republicans when they (actually) take action?!”, there’s a big difference there. What do you have a guilty complex? Try not to jump the gun, next time.

“raggy”

Real mature response.

“I said do something from the beginning, don’t take out Iraq, go to Iran if we took out Iraq then we’d have to ignore Iran at our peril. But NOOOOooooooo, no one would listen then, ESPECIALLY the conservatives.”

Well, we’re in concurrence now. So, now that we both agree, meaning you don’t have to be alone shouting about Iran, what do you suppose we do?! Is it the same thing that you “advised” in 2002, or have you seen anything that would change your mind and offer a different strategy?

Posted by: rahdigly at January 13, 2006 07:15 PM

John Back,

The war on Christianity is real. School systems in all parts of the country have passed rules regarding the wearing of “inappropriate” garb.

If this war is real, can you post some links documenting some of the battles? You know, just to further the discussion?

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 13, 2006 07:21 PM

There have been some excellent points made in this discussion. What started out as a post by esimon that was obviously meant to tar the liberal leaning thinkers with fear generating terms of ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ has brought out the EXACT equivalent on the other end of the continuum… that is, that one can use the same reasoning and history to rightful place conservatives in the camp of ‘fascists’ and ‘social Darwinists’ … that is survival of the fittest to you unlettered emotionalists in the conservative camp (how ironic).

Yossarian’s post had it right. Following the conservative logic of keeping the government out of businesses’ business, Child Labor laws, unions, laws regarding workers’ safety, and business’s liabilities would be purely voluntary. It really was not too long ago that children were routinely put in mines and dangerous factories for pennies a day. Injured workers and those permanently disabled were apt to be fired. Families were compensated only at the discretion of the company. The families of worker killed on the job were routinely ignored, or if living in company housing, evicted. There was no retirement or Social Security. Those too old to work had better have family to support them or charitable organizations to support them. Savings for the unskilled workers was nil since they often left the company in debt to the company stores or housing accounts.

Read history folks these were the facts of life for many, many workers in the 1850’s through the 1920’s.

My guess is that esimon comes from people who benefited greatly by the ‘socialist’ movements and organizations… unions, government labor laws and employee responsibility, work site safety laws, oversight of retirement systems (ha!), Social Security laws, federal intervention in public works after the Crash of ‘29…

The good old days indeed… conservatives live in a fool’s paradise. They would howl the loudest if the progressive actions of the ‘liberal socialists’ were removed… afterall, they have the most to lose.

LibRick… working, self-supporting, six figures, not in debt, NOT A WHINER, like most wealthy white males.

Posted by: LibRick at January 13, 2006 07:34 PM

The most important reason why socialism cannot work is not ideological. It is merely the practical problem that it does not have a price mechanism. A market price regulates supply and demand and contains information about scarcity and future expectations. There is nothing a government can do to duplicate this.

The free market requires the rule of law and some government regulation This does not mean extensive government ownership or management. It just does not work. It is also no longer necessary.

Socialism is old fashioned. A century ago, when we were a much poorer country and the economy was more concentrated, you could make a decent agreement for socialism. That time has passed.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2006 07:35 PM

Socialism ,,,, It does’nt work in Europe, why do you think it would work here. Europe has 9.0% unemployment, is that whaT WE want for this country. Liberals think that if everbody is even in life there will be Eutopia. If you want something out of life get off your bum and go after it, do’ent wait for someone to give it to you, You probally do’ent deserve it anyway.

Posted by: philipz at January 13, 2006 07:59 PM

Jack,

It isn’t just that socialism’s time has passed.
Americans feel that they’re entitled to whatever they feel that they are worth, and socialism doesn’t reward those that feel entitled.
Socialism is about sharing from the top down.

You’re right, that time has long past.

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 08:06 PM

Suprisingly, as a Democrat, Liberal, and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I agree with most of Eric’s original post. As a Christian I also do not see any “War on Christianity”. As far as stores saying “Happy Holidays”, they do have customers who are not Christians and that do have holidays in December and January. I do not support Socialism, because it does not work, however the Consevitives tend to lable any governtment regulation as “socialist”. Medicare was fought by people who called it “socialised medicine”, although many on this blog may be too young to remember.

Posted by: Warren Dace at January 13, 2006 08:16 PM

Rocky

Socialism has nothing to do with sharing from the top down. It is the system for managing the economy that involved government ownership of the means of production. Socialist countries past and present were not particularly generous. Consider the difference in behavior between the socialist Soviet Union and the free market U.S. after WWII.

The free market has created so much wealth that even the poor in the U.S. live at a very high level of physical comfort. What the free market does not do is ensure equality. That may be something you want to pursue, but socialism won’t necessarily help with that except to the extent that it slows economic growth, which tends to dampen inequality.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2006 08:29 PM

Charles W Link to any major newspaper for the past couple of years or Google for banned speech. You will find many links to stories about banned t-shirts, crosses, etc. However, I doubt that you will take the time or effort to do so. It might burst your cocoon.

Posted by: John Back at January 13, 2006 08:32 PM

John Back,

However, I doubt that you will take the time or effort to do so. It might burst your cocoon.

Let me get this straight… You brought up that these cases exist, you aren’t willing to post a single link to one of them, and you’re saying I’m unwilling to take the time and effort? Whan an effective way to further the discussion! Since you’re unwilling to back up your assertions, the logical conclusion for me to draw is that you can’t back them up.

By the way, I have looked up every example Bill O’Reilly has given in support of this “War” on Christmas. He’s flat out lied about over half of them, and the other half he’s exaggerated beyond recognition.

Take care of your own cocoon.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 13, 2006 08:49 PM

Jack, i
In your last post you just spelled out exactly why the whole premise of Eric’s article is incorrect. Liberals in America have never really been wholesale supporters of European-style socialism, our ideas are a hybrid that come from many places, not from one single source. (Look at phx8’s post to find just some of the others.) I think this is why I find it so objectionable that he’s constantly trying to stick the socialist label upon us. He’s doing all he can to shove us into a box that we’ve only dipped a hand into when we formed our own unique Liberal American philosophy.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2006 08:54 PM

Socialism is nothing but a power grab by the so called elite. They preach government control from the cradle to the grave. Because for the last 20 years our children have been taught to run from fights and look at the ground with their hands at their sides when confronted by bullies, we now have a gutless bunch of men running the world who must have government help to exist in the manner they think they deserve. To sum it up we are going to pay for the several decades of namby pambys we produced in the liberal school system and there is nothing we can do about it. Its to bad Ayn Rand wasn’t required reading by all school children.

Posted by: jc at January 13, 2006 09:05 PM

Adrienne

You are right. Liberals in the U.S. are not socialists.

Sometimes liberal academics fall for it, however, and they are too tolerant of Marxists, who are real enemies of civilization. Fortunately, socialism is discredited.

Liberals currently suffer from a lack of vision. They kind of ran out of steam with the failure of the great society and during the 1970s they more or less ran the conservatives out the universities and retreated into the ivory tower. Conservatives built think tanks in the real world and now control the intellectual agenda. It is about time for liberals to dump the Teddy Kennedys and get back to some serious thinking about a market based “fair” society.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2006 09:13 PM

If the Constitution is a “living document” then its meaning changes according to the political fashion of the day. This makes it meaningless and the rights it guarantees (not grants) are simply the privileges whatever mob holds power that day chooses to allow. The Constitution is our charter of government, the document that makes our government legitimate. It is the shackle that binds tyrants. Its meaning must remain unchanged for our rights as Americans to be secure. Many people think America is a democracy. It isn’t, though it’s rapidly degenerating into one. The founding fathers greatly feared democracy and warned against it. They were among the few people in history to learn the lessons that history offers. America was founded as a republic, the only form of government that protects the rights of man. The fact that the execution of the idea isn’t perfect doesn’t lessen its moral or practical value. Republicanism (referring to the ideology not the political party) strictly delimits the authority of government. This is done through the mechanism of a constitution. If that constitution changes according to the political whims of those in authority the shackle is removed from the tyrant and a police state is inevitable.

Posted by: steve at January 13, 2006 09:52 PM

Communism, socialism and fascism are all variations on a theme, that theme being the belief that common people are too stupid to decide what’s best for them and must be forced to follow an enlightened avatar. Hitler and Mussolini were self described socialists. “Nazi” means “National Socialist”. Fascism is “right wing” only if the entire political spectrum is statist.

Posted by: steve at January 13, 2006 10:16 PM

adrienne,

Interestingly enough, articles like the one above aren’t usually the kind that people on the Left or Center in WB tend to write. No, they don’t waste their time writing shrill screeds which rail against far-right figures like William F. Buckley, Bill Cristol, or Rush Limbaugh. Nor do they attack the whole conservative oeuvre trying to raise questions about their patriotism, or try to lie about, or chip away at the archaic foundations of conservative philosophical thought in America.

Adrienne, you have your hateful views and I have mine I guess.

Also, Stephen is great and I’m very glad that he is willing to engage me here on watchblog, but he hardly kicked my debating butt. Unless of course by that you mean that you agree with him and I failed to pursuade you. But that’s hardly an objective comparison. We’ve gone around on this a couple of times and I don’t totally disagree with what he said in the last post, it’s just that from other conversations I know that his ‘moderation’ tends in one direction.

phx8,

I don’t think so. I mean, you are probably right that Jefferson and Adams have contributed to the dominant memes of American political thought, but when you look at progressive ideas and policies the flavor of the viewpoint seems more recent.

Look at a list of ‘successful’ countries today, and how closely they match the aristocratic vision of John Adams. ‘Deserving’ countries are consistently colonialists, who made their wealth and claimed the land through brutual exploitation of others abroad, and genocide of native peoples at home.

Here’s my take. If you look at all the countries throughout history there are none that did not engage in brutal exploitation and warfare.

All the ‘deserving’ countries have something more pertinent in common. Western culture and a sophisticated system of property rights. Look at the third world in Latin America. Just Mexico… how many times has Mexico nationalized it’s industries in modern history? I’m not sure offhand but it is several. What is the main difference between Hong Kong or Taiwan, and Latin America?

There is a reason that in countries where it’s difficult for those outside the government to actually have title to the land their family may have lived on for generations that poverty is endemic.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 10:23 PM

Jc,
I’ve taught High School English, and “Anthem” by Ayn Rand was required reading. That’s the Elk Grove School District in California.

Have you read any of Ayn Rand’s books? Do you think a writer so utterly incapable of writing a decent sex scene has anything useful to say about life? Although Ayn Rand’s inability to write about sexual relations undoubtedly explains why there are so few libertarians in the first place.

Adrienne,
Thanks for picking up on my earlier point. I was going to expand on it, about the basic duality in our culture between the wealthy elite of John Adams, and the common man. I used Jefferson as an example, but Andrew Jackson might be a better one.

To spend time on communism and socialism in our society is to waste time. The battles between capitalism and socialism were resolved in compromises forged by FDR after 1929, with spectacular success. If there were a desire to discuss an economic philosophy and its quiet pervasiveness in today’s culture, it should be fascism. However, the term is so loaded with perjorative connotations, I’m not going to go there.

The tension between the elite and the mob are manifested in generation after generation in American history; class warfare, if you will. Nevertheless, the conflict is real, and obvious today.

The President is the son of a president. Most members of the House & Senate are multi-millionares. Wealth is concentrated in an extremely small percentage of the US population, and most of that is wealth is inherited wealth.

Yeah, it’s true. When it comes to wealth, Bill Gates isn’t the rule. Paris Hilton is the rule.

As someone said: “When it comes to class warfare, I have some bad news for you. The rich won.”

As Jack notes, the poor and the middle class are relatively well off in this country, compared with those in other lands. That’s actually open to dispute, and a discussion of ‘poverty’ versus ‘misery’ could ensue, but let’s move on. What made this situation possible here was the compromises made after 1929, and the policies after WWII which gave rise to the middle class.

Today, the country’s elite are backing away from the compromises which made this country the envy of others. While economic statistics show the middle class stuck under the Bush administration in terms of wages, and while those statistics show poverty increasing, debt skyrocketing, and so on, large corporations and the wealthy elite are accumulating even more wealth and power than ever before.

During a recovery, many will accept the conditions. During the next downturn, many will reject the imbalance, particularly when they are on the low end of the see-saw.

Posted by: phx8 at January 13, 2006 10:27 PM

Adrienne,

Liberals in America have never really been wholesale supporters of European-style socialism, our ideas are a hybrid that come from many places, not from one single source. (Look at phx8’s post to find just some of the others.) I think this is why I find it so objectionable that he’s constantly trying to stick the socialist label upon us. He’s doing all he can to shove us into a box that we’ve only dipped a hand into when we formed our own unique Liberal American philosophy.

I can get more specific if it helps.

I meant to write this post after reading Jack’s post. (A conservative disagreeing with a conservative?! How is that possible? Rove’s mind control rays must be weakening. The real question is which one of us has deviated from the talking points?)

I believe that socialism has had a profound effect on the ideology and philosophy of the left, not just here in the US but worldwide. I find it objectionable that my expressing my views about this, which are no more hateful than any post on the left side, is treated with such contempt and labeled as hatred just because you disagree with it. If I weren’t going to express my true opinions I might as well not write anything at all.

I think this is why I find it so objectionable that he’s constantly trying to stick the socialist label upon us. He’s doing all he can to shove us into a box that we’ve only dipped a hand into when we formed our own unique Liberal American philosophy.

If there were scores of right-wing think tanks and public figures in the U.S. today who wrote about the glories of nationalism and race purity I would expect the term of fascist to be used to describe them even if it were in fact only fascist-lite. In fact if there is just one David Duke, the left will continue to hang him on the ‘racist GOP’ for years. If you don’t believe that David Duke isn’t used by the left -on this site even- to paint Republicans as racists, well you aren’t reading it all the time because it has happened.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2006 10:42 PM

First off, Eric Simonson, how do we know that Venezuelan communism won’t give way to some form of “Thatcherism” or similar reform at some point? Look at where we are today this all evolved out of some very Socialized systems (New Deal and the like) who’s to say that the (form of) communism under Chavez isn’t a means to cleaning up their system a bit? Yes granted it is the direct result of corporate laissez fairism and American backlash but it could evolve into something else over time. The poverty problem in South and Central America does require a bit of bureaucracy, what they consider poor or disadvantaged are very very different from what we in this country would call poor or disadvantaged. Myself certainly no communist or even socialist fully, would actually have to contend that evolutions happen as they did with us. Also that region is no stranger to radical politics but this through trial and error might actually result in something more.

Secondly, I hate the notion where we think as Americans we have the right to tell them what to do with their own country. They aren’t setting out to create the ruble as far as I know (point there being communism/socialism of the past is different than today’s versions there of) and are merely going to a form of socialism and even protectionism that will take some capitlist reforms to make it work.

As for claims that they will grow more cocaine—gee whiz we’ve never dealt with that before (sarcasm).

QUESTION Eric: Why wasn’t there the same railings against Russia’s managed democracy proposals? What Putin did and is doing is highly dangerous not only to civil liberties but could sell arms all over the globe including Nuclear fission materials to ations in the mideast (and probably is). Venezuela in contrast is harmless but the problem is capitalists/corporations more directly don’t like the idea. and by no means do i think the CIA should go and try to destabilize the region or anything else. Why? So we keep them a source of cheap labor? It is their country afterall, hoping ofcourse it doesn’t traverse into the hands of despotical regeims instead of responsible reformers but we ourselves and Britain were born really of socialism (Britain very protectionist) thus we enjoy the modern era we have today where we have a balanced combination of capitalism and socialism.

Posted by: Novenge at January 13, 2006 11:39 PM

Eric-
One can be belligerent in one’s writing without being irrational. You insist on the Democrats as being direct ideological descendants of Marx and have on several occasions question the patriotism, honesty and forthrightness of those who vote blue rather than red.

And when we argue against that? You’re shocked we’re being so partisan, so irrational. You provoke us, then you complain to all who will listen that we’re just hot-tempered devotees to a sad old philosophy.

You don’t seem willing to take us at our word, and in this time of national need when we want to show up and be counted, your people and you are telling us we don’t mean the things we really mean, and therefore deserve to sit on the sidelines.

The more you try and cut us out of this, the more you will find resistance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2006 12:02 AM

Novenge

We are stuck re Venezuela because Hugo Chavez needs to use us to increase his standing with leftists worldwide and as a scapegoat for his inevitable troubles. No matter how we treat him, he will make trouble for us. You remember that the Carter Administration was generous with the Sandistas to no effect.

Chavez’s policies will wreck the economy. Oil wealth will obscure the failure for awhile, but what is already happening is that foreigners are not investing or demanding a risk premium. This gives Hugo the chance to claim he is being ostracized or cheated by the capitalists. It is true that he is, but not for the reasons he claims. Nobody wants to put money where it has a good chance of being lost. Investors will invest in countries that are stabile. If you invest with a five or ten year horizon, you don’t want to invest in Venezuela.

Last I heard, Chavez wanted to set up a bank to compete with the IMF. Good. That is his business. If it works it will save us some money and effort, but I would be against its success and so will most investors.

So we all have choices. Chavez can engage in anti-market behavior. Investors can avoid his country. There is not a moral dimension to this except to the extent that Chavez is oppressing his people and will end up with more, not less, poverty.

What will happen is the following. The economy will start to go bad. If the price of oil drops, it will get worse faster. Foreign investors will not invest. Why should they? Chavez and leftists in U.S. and Europe will tout Chavez as a bold innovator being strangled by the capitalists who refuse to invest (and lose their money). Eventually there will be a coup (since Chavez rigs the elections) and the whole thing will end badly. I would not be optimistic about this.

Re Russia - the U.S. complains all the time about the re