Jim Stillman
NevarFinally, a Liberal's Beliefs
July 13th 2007 16:08
This is my third, and last, posting on my perceptions of the conservative/liberal split in the United States. The first pointed out that modern Republican conservatives govern poorly because they dislike and distrust government. My friends to the Right often equate bigger government with less efficiency and more waste. There is some validity to that position, but not always and not necessarily.
The second post stressed the need for a reconstituted conservative movement in this country, one that was truly conservative and reluctant to use government to enforce personal views of morality and propriety on the rest of us.
The purpose of this post is to explain my values and those of most liberals.
Republicans have re-defined Liberalism to suit their ends.
We live in a world of clichés, sound bites and catch phrases that threaten introspection and intelligent conversation. There are no calm, reasoned debates in our national discourse: Name calling, accusations of venality, spinning of the facts, yes, but no reasoned debate.
Check out the “talking heads” on any cable discussion show or interview program. The participants, both from the left and from the right, interrupt each other, talk over the others and act boorish. I feel that the worst violators of this rudeness are the Ann Coltures and Bill O’Reillys on the far right but acknowledge that some of the representatives of the extreme left are no better. Moreover, the prevalent use of negative campaigning is illustrative. Rather than state what the candidate will do or stands for, the opponent is accused of being a slave to “special interests” (whatever that means), or with a secret agenda to raise taxes, increase insurance premiums, double telephone and utility bills and kill puppies and kittens.
In Florida, and elsewhere I am certain, the most damning term that is used against an opponent is that he or she is a (dare I say it?) liberal. It has almost become humorous. One commercial from the past election season, in support of a congressional candidate for office, couples the name of the opponent with the term “liberal”. Every time. In a 90 second commercial, the “L word” was spoken twenty-two times!
Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and the answer is likely to be taxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. Moreover, the same conservative would state the cause of all of these problems could be summed up in one word: Liberalism. Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans attempted and, to a substantial degree have succeeded, to define “liberalism” in a distorted image. Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, Republicans have adopted a policy of speaking only in clichés and slogans, bumper sticker stuff: belief in equal rights for all Americans is redefined as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is now "soft on crime", a belief in freedom of religion is portrayed as "hatred of Christians", and questioning the success or failure of our foreign policy toward Iraq or Iran or North Korea is simplified as “cut and run”. If one supports providing adequate public services, he or she is a “tax and spend liberal”. This has the dual effect of making an opponent a cartoon-like character and, at the same time, avoids addressing difficult issues. Up to now, these views have had an audience.
Although the “liberal” point of view is ridiculed by many people, when push gets to shove, many people believe in the core values of Liberalism.
Liberal-progressives have, for too long, allowed the Republican right to frame the issues in the debate. This put Liberals always on the defensive. It is time to re-assert all of the human values that are the cornerstone of liberalism and that, deep down, are the principles of America.
A significant problem is discussing the core of liberal belief is that these beliefs are not monolithic. An anonymous definition of what it means to be a liberal is illustrative of the problems in confronting the Right:” Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.” And then there is Robert Frost’s well known quote: “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.”
Liberalism starts with a view that society should address certain needs.
Liberalism begins with a view of the obligations of society and government, to address human and social needs. As a practical matter, each individual is unable to address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailability of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. Government, federal, state and local, is the mechanism by which society fulfills its obligations. This is not to disparage or minimize addressing of societal and individual needs by private non-governmental entities, such as churches or secular charities and organizations.
Hubert Humphrey expressed his (and my) personal view of how governments are to be viewed and judged, “The test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
I do not like to keep quoting others, but Garrison Keillor, expressed his views on the essence of liberalism: “We don’t let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here . . . if your neighbor’s car won’t start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat.”
What then, specifically, do most Liberals believe?
As I have noted, liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs, suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty that characterizes the far right. Essentially there are, however, core principles that are accepted.
An individual has the right to his or her beliefs.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individual’s rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my “choice” is to worship with deadly snakes, that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If you insist your child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then your child needs to attend a non-public school. If you want your child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or if you wish the teacher or school official to publicly pray, your child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to you may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on others’ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups. Government cannot be homophobic. An individual’s sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60’s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Government should enforce individual rights.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, age, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual preference or orientation. The people who need this protection, for the most part, are those in the minority, those whose beliefs or lawful behavior offend the majority. After all, the majority need no special protection; the person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views or the homosexual who wants to receive all of the benefits of marital status heterosexuals receive, including health coverage, pension rights or inheritance rights.
Government must assist those in need.
Each of us has an obligation to help the weak and oppressed. In a complex world, that obligation on individual members of society is undertaken by Government in our stead. The poor, homeless, weak, defenseless among us need protection and special care. Government, at its best, provides that care and protection. For example, laws prohibiting child labor, regulations for safety in nursing homes, prohibitions against child, spousal or elder abuse are all examples of society protecting those in need of such protection. Government should be there to alleviate loss caused by natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. A number of individuals cannot support themselves because of being unqualified for employment physical or mental infirmity. Government should protect those individuals by providing education, therapy, job training or sustenance.
Sometimes, government has no role and should butt out.
To some extent these principles will overlap. Some choices made by individuals may not be consistent with the choices made by others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an “X-Rated” establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. (There is a difference between government restrictions and those of a non-governmental entity; if my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant - but that is a private matter.) When government over-steps its role and interferes with personal decisions, chaos results. In the recent Terri Schaivo case, the local, state and federal governments were manipulated by religious interest groups; every organization and entity involved lost credibility and respect as a result.
Miscellaneous beliefs of this Liberal.
Liberalism is not monolithic. We all have personal views on a number of topics. This lack of solidarity is a weakness in confronting the far-right conservative. The latter is so darn certain of everything. As for me, I believe, in addition to the foregoing, that there should be reasonable regulation of firearms, especially handguns; there should be a complete abolition of capital punishment.(Most advanced countries have either abolished the death penalty or have restricted it use. The United States allows capital punishment, along with such admirable countries as China, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. What great company); and taxation should be used to encourage certain behavior and to discourage other behavior. For example, deductions for income tax purposes are designed to promote home ownership (mortgage interest) and charitable giving; other tax laws could be used to discourage use of controlled substances. Legalize marijuana and tax the stuffing out of it. I do not support the use of drugs, but acknowledge that marijuana use is endemic. To devote millions of law enforcement dollars to fight a war on drugs is not cost-effective. I would suggest semi-legalization with strong regulatory enforcement, as in liquor laws. Again, tax’em, as well as on cigarettes to discourage use.
As to foreign matters and relations, we should accord our allies respect and consultation. We would reject “preventative” war and unilateral adventures, except where our national interests were directly and imminently challenged. We would use our force when necessary but after preparing our citizens for the sacrifice that will be required. President Bush stated that Americans were sacrificing as a result of the war against terror. He cited the lines at airports, the taking off of shoes. This is a far cry from the sacrifices during World War II: gas and meat rationing, restrictions on using electricity, even the inability of women to have silk stockings due to the manufacture of parachutes.
What must liberals do?
First and foremost, we must stop being defensive. We must not allow conservatives to frame the debate. We must present our views forcibly and coherently in every forum possible. Our candidates should reject a negative view of liberalism and not allow conservative candidates to use slogans to avoid issues. We must challenge, challenge and challenge again efforts to demonize liberals.
On a personal note, I resolve to keep my mind open to other views. That’s what a liberal does.
The second post stressed the need for a reconstituted conservative movement in this country, one that was truly conservative and reluctant to use government to enforce personal views of morality and propriety on the rest of us.
The purpose of this post is to explain my values and those of most liberals.
Republicans have re-defined Liberalism to suit their ends.
We live in a world of clichés, sound bites and catch phrases that threaten introspection and intelligent conversation. There are no calm, reasoned debates in our national discourse: Name calling, accusations of venality, spinning of the facts, yes, but no reasoned debate.
Check out the “talking heads” on any cable discussion show or interview program. The participants, both from the left and from the right, interrupt each other, talk over the others and act boorish. I feel that the worst violators of this rudeness are the Ann Coltures and Bill O’Reillys on the far right but acknowledge that some of the representatives of the extreme left are no better. Moreover, the prevalent use of negative campaigning is illustrative. Rather than state what the candidate will do or stands for, the opponent is accused of being a slave to “special interests” (whatever that means), or with a secret agenda to raise taxes, increase insurance premiums, double telephone and utility bills and kill puppies and kittens.
In Florida, and elsewhere I am certain, the most damning term that is used against an opponent is that he or she is a (dare I say it?) liberal. It has almost become humorous. One commercial from the past election season, in support of a congressional candidate for office, couples the name of the opponent with the term “liberal”. Every time. In a 90 second commercial, the “L word” was spoken twenty-two times!
Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and the answer is likely to be taxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. Moreover, the same conservative would state the cause of all of these problems could be summed up in one word: Liberalism. Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans attempted and, to a substantial degree have succeeded, to define “liberalism” in a distorted image. Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, Republicans have adopted a policy of speaking only in clichés and slogans, bumper sticker stuff: belief in equal rights for all Americans is redefined as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is now "soft on crime", a belief in freedom of religion is portrayed as "hatred of Christians", and questioning the success or failure of our foreign policy toward Iraq or Iran or North Korea is simplified as “cut and run”. If one supports providing adequate public services, he or she is a “tax and spend liberal”. This has the dual effect of making an opponent a cartoon-like character and, at the same time, avoids addressing difficult issues. Up to now, these views have had an audience.
Although the “liberal” point of view is ridiculed by many people, when push gets to shove, many people believe in the core values of Liberalism.
Liberal-progressives have, for too long, allowed the Republican right to frame the issues in the debate. This put Liberals always on the defensive. It is time to re-assert all of the human values that are the cornerstone of liberalism and that, deep down, are the principles of America.
A significant problem is discussing the core of liberal belief is that these beliefs are not monolithic. An anonymous definition of what it means to be a liberal is illustrative of the problems in confronting the Right:” Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.” And then there is Robert Frost’s well known quote: “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.”
Liberalism starts with a view that society should address certain needs.
Liberalism begins with a view of the obligations of society and government, to address human and social needs. As a practical matter, each individual is unable to address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailability of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. Government, federal, state and local, is the mechanism by which society fulfills its obligations. This is not to disparage or minimize addressing of societal and individual needs by private non-governmental entities, such as churches or secular charities and organizations.
Hubert Humphrey expressed his (and my) personal view of how governments are to be viewed and judged, “The test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
I do not like to keep quoting others, but Garrison Keillor, expressed his views on the essence of liberalism: “We don’t let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here . . . if your neighbor’s car won’t start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat.”
What then, specifically, do most Liberals believe?
As I have noted, liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs, suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty that characterizes the far right. Essentially there are, however, core principles that are accepted.
An individual has the right to his or her beliefs.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individual’s rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my “choice” is to worship with deadly snakes, that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If you insist your child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then your child needs to attend a non-public school. If you want your child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or if you wish the teacher or school official to publicly pray, your child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to you may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on others’ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups. Government cannot be homophobic. An individual’s sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60’s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Government should enforce individual rights.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, age, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual preference or orientation. The people who need this protection, for the most part, are those in the minority, those whose beliefs or lawful behavior offend the majority. After all, the majority need no special protection; the person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views or the homosexual who wants to receive all of the benefits of marital status heterosexuals receive, including health coverage, pension rights or inheritance rights.
Government must assist those in need.
Each of us has an obligation to help the weak and oppressed. In a complex world, that obligation on individual members of society is undertaken by Government in our stead. The poor, homeless, weak, defenseless among us need protection and special care. Government, at its best, provides that care and protection. For example, laws prohibiting child labor, regulations for safety in nursing homes, prohibitions against child, spousal or elder abuse are all examples of society protecting those in need of such protection. Government should be there to alleviate loss caused by natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. A number of individuals cannot support themselves because of being unqualified for employment physical or mental infirmity. Government should protect those individuals by providing education, therapy, job training or sustenance.
Sometimes, government has no role and should butt out.
To some extent these principles will overlap. Some choices made by individuals may not be consistent with the choices made by others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an “X-Rated” establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. (There is a difference between government restrictions and those of a non-governmental entity; if my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant - but that is a private matter.) When government over-steps its role and interferes with personal decisions, chaos results. In the recent Terri Schaivo case, the local, state and federal governments were manipulated by religious interest groups; every organization and entity involved lost credibility and respect as a result.
Miscellaneous beliefs of this Liberal.
Liberalism is not monolithic. We all have personal views on a number of topics. This lack of solidarity is a weakness in confronting the far-right conservative. The latter is so darn certain of everything. As for me, I believe, in addition to the foregoing, that there should be reasonable regulation of firearms, especially handguns; there should be a complete abolition of capital punishment.(Most advanced countries have either abolished the death penalty or have restricted it use. The United States allows capital punishment, along with such admirable countries as China, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. What great company); and taxation should be used to encourage certain behavior and to discourage other behavior. For example, deductions for income tax purposes are designed to promote home ownership (mortgage interest) and charitable giving; other tax laws could be used to discourage use of controlled substances. Legalize marijuana and tax the stuffing out of it. I do not support the use of drugs, but acknowledge that marijuana use is endemic. To devote millions of law enforcement dollars to fight a war on drugs is not cost-effective. I would suggest semi-legalization with strong regulatory enforcement, as in liquor laws. Again, tax’em, as well as on cigarettes to discourage use.
As to foreign matters and relations, we should accord our allies respect and consultation. We would reject “preventative” war and unilateral adventures, except where our national interests were directly and imminently challenged. We would use our force when necessary but after preparing our citizens for the sacrifice that will be required. President Bush stated that Americans were sacrificing as a result of the war against terror. He cited the lines at airports, the taking off of shoes. This is a far cry from the sacrifices during World War II: gas and meat rationing, restrictions on using electricity, even the inability of women to have silk stockings due to the manufacture of parachutes.
What must liberals do?
First and foremost, we must stop being defensive. We must not allow conservatives to frame the debate. We must present our views forcibly and coherently in every forum possible. Our candidates should reject a negative view of liberalism and not allow conservative candidates to use slogans to avoid issues. We must challenge, challenge and challenge again efforts to demonize liberals.
On a personal note, I resolve to keep my mind open to other views. That’s what a liberal does.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Jim Stillman
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Elroy
Elroy's Orble Warble!™
What wise and tempered words you write – for my part, I find it hard to be so understanding when addressing the irrationalities of conservative logic.
You are, of course, correct when you say that conservatives do not manage the ship of state well because it is against their interests to do so. I remember down here in Australia during the eighties our Federal Labor Government suffered a similar, yet inverse, phenomenon when they tried to get into bed with private enterprise; as left-leaning statists with no great entrepreneurial flair, big business and its disciples ate the government for lunch – they cleaned up on ‘privatizations’, ran ‘corporatized’ state enterprises as a means to stuff their pockets and generally pulled the wool over the eyes of the less commerce savvy liberals.
As a result, conservatives were able to point at these failings as proof that left-wing administrations were fiscally inept and that they could do a much better job, and it could indeed be argued that they did.
The excoriating of the public purse did become a whole lot more efficient under conservative rule, and all the while the government was able to say ‘Don’t worry! We know what we’re doing! We understand business!’, and so the transfer of wealth was streamlined, the friction removed and the rip-off complete.
One Liberal Party leader (Yes, our conservatives are called the Liberal Party of Australia – a rose by any other name etc) said that governments, from banks to hospitals to schools, had no place running businesses, but what we are all fast learning is that business has no place running governments.
The other thing about to consider about the Republicans’ inability to do the job they have been elected to do is that it is quite deliberate. It could be argued that key agencies have been turned over to loyal Bushies with the express purpose of running them into the ground, a tactic known as ‘Starve the beast’ – cut funding and screw up left right and centre to create an utterly dysfunctional department and then cry ‘See? Government run business doesn’t work!’ Then you can flog it off to your pals. Simple, really.
Conservatives are always telling us that they are ‘believers in individual freedom’ and to degree they are right – they believe that an individual should have the freedom to unconditionally exploit another individual; however, when it comes to and individual’s freedom to have sex with who ever they fancy, conservatives come over all coy and demand that their narrow moral code be observed or else.
To break the approaches of left/right divide down to its most basic: the left believe in the deregulation of the social realm and the regulation of the economic; the Right wants the regulation of the social realm and the deregulation of the economic.
I’ve got to agree with you on all counts about liberalism. Conservatives owe more to what they term ‘socialism’ than they would ever care to admit, or indeed know about, but due to what – the state of the education system? The colonization of the media? The spread of fundamentalist Christianity? – they all seem to think that the USA got where it was due to free trade and individual effort alone.
Conservatives get to frame the agenda for two of reasons; one, they seem to be naturally pugilistic– they have developed smash-mouth politics to such a point that libs are pounced on from the first instance, and the left have no such smack-‘em-down-and-drag-‘em-o ut specialists to counter them; two, as they don’t need to bother checking facts or considering any opposing points of view they can speak in wild, radical, catchy soundbites and just move on, leaving the liberals to explain the truth, the caveats, the qualifiers, by which time attention spans have withered and died.
The MSM does not lean to the left; if it did, Bush 43 would have been toast long ago. Don’t look to who writes the media youranter, look to who owns it.
So thanks for your blog, Judge; what a shame that you weren’t a Supreme when Georgie-boy came a-calling.
Come and visit me, if you have the time, on letsaskelroy.blogspot.com and here at Orble at Elroy’s Orble Warble!™, and thanks again for such a lucid and well-argued case for the affirmative – I’m glad I’m not alone.
Cheers
Elroy
And have a read of this: Really Long Link Very scary indeed, but pretty funny while it’s at it.
Comment by Elroy
Elroy's Orble Warble!™
uk/world/americas/
article2766040.ece
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Elroy
Elroy's Orble Warble!™
Cheers
Elroy
PS Hey Judge! I got your message! Looks like we're buddies!
Comment by S.L. Bradish
I'm not sure how your education system works in Australia, Elroy, but in the US we have had the "benefits" of a liberal-run school system for more than 40 years. "Whole language" reading was taught and kids were graduating who couldn't read. Teachers Unions had their way with pretty much everything they wanted. Tenure (celebrated by liberals) made it almost impossible to fire a teacher regardless of the reasons. Accountability was unheard of. The Democrat way of fixing the situation was to increase taxes and pour money all over the school system (new computers, new gymnasiums, etc.). Sounds good doesn't it? Well, in 40 plus years the standards of education had been lowered repeatedly, high school graduates still couldn't read. Free (but not to the taxpayers) breakfasts and lunches didn't help the learning process at all. Bill Clinton asked people to send him pictures of schools that were falling down or badly in need of repair. It was a huge effort to "fix the education system." Some of the schools were pretty bad, true... 40 years of neglect will do that. More tax money was dumped into repairs of buildings and he "promised" to hire 100,000 new teachers. Whooopppeee, right? Wrong. Although he got the funding for 100,0000 new teachers nowhere near that number were actually hired. Kids still couldn't read. When George Bush took office, he started "No Child Left Behind". The cornerstone of his plan was teaching phonics instead of whole language reading and testing the students often as they advanced, and holding both teachers and schools accountable. Some radical notion, huh? It's working... in spite of the very liberal teachers unions and their resistance to being held accountable. In some places, the teachers were even tested on the material they were teaching. Guess what? A frightening number of the teachers couldn't pass a fifth grade exam in their own subject! "Outcome based education" is a liberal idea, no child is ever corrected for wrong answers in the hope of building self-esteem. No one fails, everyone gets awards for everything, high achievers and low achievers get the same grades, same promotions and same rewards. That's why we now have (2nd and 3rd year Sophomores!) When they finally graduate (no doubt with honors) at the age of 25, they'll have great self-esteem... they just won't be able to read. Phonics is changing that, but many schools are still resistent to change.
Homelessness is a problem everywhere, I suppose. It's necessary to provide shelter and food for the homeless, nobody can argue with that. However, the conservative method is to encourage churches and civic organizations to contribute to the funding and running of places to feed and shelter those who need it. The conservative way is to provide opportunities for employment and education to the homeless to get them off the streets and back into society. The liberal way to "fix" the problem is to continue to use tax money to support the "less fortunate" and in L.A. several years ago, they equipped shopping carts with bumpers so the homeless would have an easier time pushing all their worldly goods from dumpster to dumpster!
Individual responsibility is important to Conservatives. You can call us "judgemental" if you like. But if a philosophy of "nothing is ever really wrong" keeps failing... well.... For example indiscriminate sex gave us venereal diseases. Modern medicine gave us cures (for some), relieving people of the need to keep their pants on. Abortion (which is NOT in the Constitution, by the way) was legalized by a liberal activist Supreme Court. Since Conservatives don't believe in the slaughter of children and liberals do, however, maybe it's not such a bad thing. After all, the babies being killed would have grown up to be liberals... sorry, I couldn't help adding that!! Once again personal accountability was removed. "Go ahead and do whatever you want, a 'hitman M.D.' will 'fix the problem for you' ..." Even most of the liberals I know don't approve of the likes of Dr. Tiller who kills babies right up to the due date! He also, by the way, doesn't report very young girls whose babies he kills (as required by law). Personal responsibility can stop a huge number of societal problems. Having babies AFTER marriage would cut down on single welfare mothers who spend their whole lives in poverty. Everyone is entitled to an education and taking responsibility for your own education would cut down on enemployment (due to ignorance). Indiscriminate sexual activity would certainly cut down the abortion count. AIDS has a limited number of ways to be "shared" and not doing those things would cut down on the number of AIDS cases and deaths. Of course, if everyone took responsibility for their actions and paid their own way, and raised their kids to do the same, liberals would be lost, wouldn't they?
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Jim Stillman
SL, you blame every poor educational result on Democrats! Please allow me to say that this is a bit simplistic. Politicians of both parties have, in catering to their respective bases, supported silly proposals. In Florida, for example, Jeb Bush’s version of accountability has resulted in teaching to the test and virtually no teaching of general and non-specific information. The result has been a lack of creativity. Do some kids still excel? Sure, but the idea of pass/fail on specific tests determining financial assistance to schools and bonuses to teachers has been a failure – in the opinion of Republicans and Democrats alike.
As to homelessness, yes it is a problem. And individual responsibility sounds really great and, yes, help should come from churches and private charities. But look at the reason or much of the homelessness. In my state, many people on the street belong in mental institutions; they are not there because those who hate government decided that to “throw money” to keep hospitals for the mentally ill in operation was “welfare” and cost too much and wouldn’t allow massive tax cuts for the wealthy! Are there problems with the “liberal” approach? Certainly, but placing blame on the inability of a homeless person to exercise “personal responsibility” is unfair.
I am certain that you really do not believe, “Conservatives don't believe in the slaughter of children and liberals do” or that liberalism is the root cause of venereal diseases. The first statement refers to abortion rights. My position that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, consulting with – if she chooses – clergy, husband, father or anyone else, is a conservative one! I do not believe an activist government should interfere with that act of individual responsibility. Do I personally think abortion is a good choice? I guess it depends on circumstances. It shouldn’t be used as a routine contraceptive, but, ultimately, it is the pregnant woman’s right and individual responsibility.
Your concluding statement is unworthy of your sophisticated beliefs, generally. Everyone should be responsible and intelligent and moral and self-sufficient and perfect parents and restrain from indiscriminate sex and on and on. Liberals accept the fact that this Utopian world is unlikely to happen in the immediate future. Until it does, we have to pitch ion and help.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Limited government was the intention of the Founders, as well as freedom of religion (not freedom from it). Our government was supposed to regulate currency, protect our borders (which doesn't seem to be on the agenda of either party), defend against attacks from within or without, make laws that keep the population safe from violence and fraud. It was not intended to be a lifetime babysitter or a pork barrel creator. Education was a necessity from the beginning. Voters had to understand the issues in order to vote responsibly. It didn't mean that liberal teachings should overwhelm our Universities (forced exposure to the likes of Al Gore for example) or liberal views being taught as fact instead of theory.
Pitch in and help? Indeed... Safety nets are one thing, but we don't have to live in Utopia to understand that each of us has the right to succeed to the highest level we can achieve. Illegals come here, hoping to take advantage of the multitude of "programs" as well as to work. If the "programs" were denied, maybe we'd get less of them. I know people who prefer to lay around all day and collect a check for their lack of efforts instead of putting out the effort to advance themselves. By rewarding laziness, what have we gained? By failing to reward industriousness, what have we lost?
Comment by Jim Stillman
I have to acknowledge you can be very persuasive! I even agree with some of your basic premises; for example, that the Founders envisioned a very limited government. (Actually, they were referring to the Federal central government and their concern was whether the Federal role would interfere with the policies of the individual states, but that’s another story.) I am an enough of a libertarian to wish for limited government, except where governmental regulation and concern are vital. I’m sure that neither of us object to regulation of meat packing houses, restaurant cleanliness, elevator inspections, aircraft safety, etc.
Where I draw the line is where government attempts to regulate personal morals and personal actions that do not impact on others. If I want to pay money to see women undress or squirm on a pole, I don’t want my county to forbid it. If I choose to live with another man and perform sex in the privacy of the home, I do not want that behavior deemed criminal.
You also draw a line only yours would prohibit government from giving assistance to the unfortunates among us, or as you would characterize them, those unwilling to improve themselves.
Yes, some of the “unfortunates” are in that condition because of laziness, horrible parents, improper behavior such as drugs and such; some however are elderly or ill or have other conditions that are not related to fault.
There was a time when we lived in small neighborhoods and everyone knew everyone. In such a place, neighbors did help each other, local churches and private charities picked up the slack. I wish it would have remained that uncomplicated, but now government, preferably local or state, has to help.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
I don't approve of blaming the parents for the bad behavior of a child. Not all parents are perfect. Some are downright hideous! But if their child decides to deal drugs to school kids, commit rape or murder (or both) I can't blame the parents. The kid had a choice of how to act. Many people from bad homes have become sterling citizens. Many people from good homes have become monsters. Individual choice, Jim.
I would not prohibit anyone from receiving necessary help to get them straightened out. There are free groups like AA and NA and various religious groups who are there to help those in need. Also, in every town there is a "Help Line" that deals with those who are in need of mental care. I just don't think my tax dollars or yours should be spent on endless rehabs for spoiled brats who want to have their own way at any cost. The elderly have AARP and other special interest groups to support them. Isn't that why we have families? In my family, we take care of the older generation, no matter what. How does your family treat it's older members?
Concerning state's rights and obligations... Some things are the responsibility of the fed. and some are of the state. Let the differences be clear and voted upon. Not all the voters go for the ultra liberal ideas, you know. The smoking bans have been defeated all over the country and still put in place by good libs who want full control. I'm a smoker and don't expect the federal or state government to pay a dine toward my health care. That's not what the government was designed to do, Jim. Individual choice, remember? If your sex life is private, so are your smoking habits. Do anything you like, but no one should expect the government to pay the bill (at taxpayers expense!)
Comment by Jim Stillman
When I was a kid, my father, at the dinner table, would offer an opinion or state a position. I was expected to counter it. Then after 15 or 20 minutes, we switched sides.
I learned to value and appreciate well thought out arguments on all sides; your's certainly qualify! Thank you for expressing your point of view in a responsible and non-vitriolic manner.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Smooth Political