Michael Medved has an
excellent article, mostly targeting conservatives, explaining the "essence of liberalism". I think that most liberals would actually agree with his definitions and explanations; the question is whether that path is the right one to take or not. Excerpts:
While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions.
Every important element of the liberal program stems from the one central goal of assisting the unfortunate. Pushing for high taxes, expensive social programs, universal health coverage, lunches and breakfasts in the schools, income redistribution, affirmative action, reparations, a higher minimum wage, more generous foreign aid, multiculturalism, gay marriage, protecting endangered species, animal rights, enhancing entitlements, affirming prison rights, providing generous benefits for illegal immigrants – all these leftist imperatives arise from a common commitment to protect the powerless and uplift the unfortunate.
It's a really great piece overall -
read the whole thing.
While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteThose are not mutually exclusive. Liberals in fact also want to reward good choices and discourage destructive ones. Isn't it liberals who established taxes on cigarettes and pushed for ever-widening bans on smoking? (That's not necessarily a position I agree with, but there's no question it's a liberal one, by today's meaning of "liberal.")
More importantly, a lot of conservatives' ideas about encouraging good choices stems from some central tenets which may not be factually correct. For example, they tend to underestimate the obstacles the unfortunate face -- sometimes good choices aren't enough. It takes opportunity as well as knowing what to do with opportunity.
Every important element of the liberal program stems from the one central goal of assisting the unfortunate
I agree with that part although it's important to note that people who are liberals also have the goals that everybody else has. So the fact that we want to help the unfortunate does NOT mean that we want the fortunate to be screwed or for the highways to fall apart. It's just that we believe society has a responsibility to help the unfortunate as well.
One of the reasons I have so much trouble with Jewish conservatives is that uplifting the unfortunate and protecting the powerless seem to align closely with Jewish values. It was a single generation ago that many Jews were the unfortunate and powerless, yet now so many who have achieved power want to pull the ladder up behind them and not "pay it forward," as it were.
Then there are the parts of Medved's column which you didn't quote. They are far less reasonable and some are quite disgraceful.
This explains the odd liberal sympathy for Islamo-Nazi terrorists
There is no liberal sympathy for "Islamo-Nazi" terrorists. (Has "Islamo-fascist" become passe?) Certainly there are as many wackos on the Christian right who make common cause with militant Muslims as there are on the left. See, for example, D'Souza, Falwell, etc.
The widespread activism on behalf of the fanatical internees at Guantanamo remains one of the most spectacular displays of lefty lunacy in recent years.
As the conservative Mencken wrote, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." It used to be that "conservatives" were pro-liberty.
Please tell me you don't buy the line that liberals are pro-terrorist?
Those are not mutually exclusive. Liberals in fact also want to reward good choices and discourage destructive ones.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I'm of the firm belief that both sides generally want the same things, but the question is a matter of how to get there. I think that's what Medved was focusing on - the left focuses on the latter at the expense of the former. [See the paragraph where he details policy differences.]
For example, they tend to underestimate the obstacles the unfortunate face -- sometimes good choices aren't enough.
Alternatively, liberals overestimate those obstacles; and their policies reduce the necessity of people trying to overcome those obstacles by giving them an easy way out [at the expense of those who overcame those obstacles].
It takes opportunity as well as knowing what to do with opportunity.
Clarify, please? If you mean people making the wrong choice, to some extent that's too bad; if you mean that people are *incapable* of making the correct choice, I strongly disagree. [And while I don't think you mean this, there are liberals who *do* think this to be the case; sometimes because of an implied racism, sometimes for other reasons.]
So the fact that we want to help the unfortunate does NOT mean that we want the fortunate to be screwed or for the highways to fall apart. It's just that we believe society has a responsibility to help the unfortunate as well.
Agreed, and conservatives feel just as strongly about that responsibility - the question is what way to go about doing so.
There is no liberal sympathy for "Islamo-Nazi" terrorists.
On the extremities of the left? I don't that's true... and I do believe that it's a much larger force on that fringe than on the right.
Please tell me you don't buy the line that liberals are pro-terrorist?
No. However, I do agree with his paragraph about anti-Americanism which I think is extremely well put.
I'd rather avoid Gitmo in this discussion because I think the issues there are different and only tangentially related to this. I was surprised he brought that in, actually.
I'm of the firm belief that both sides generally want the same things, but the question is a matter of how to get there.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. There *are* some values differences as well as means differences. Homosexuality, abortion, taxation, etc. are issues about which the groups have a difference in values.
Alternatively, liberals overestimate those obstacles; and their policies reduce the necessity of people trying to overcome those obstacles by giving them an easy way out [at the expense of those who overcame those obstacles].
I agree that liberals sometimes overestimate the obstacles, but the idea that they give people an easy way out is absurd. No liberal policy helps the powerless so much that they don't need to help themselves. Perhaps welfare was getting to that point before Clinton reformed it, but it's not like there are a ton of people out there saying, "Why work? I can live fat off of food stamps and free health care!"
Clarify, please? If you mean people making the wrong choice, to some extent that's too bad; if you mean that people are *incapable* of making the correct choice, I strongly disagree.
I was talking about people who would make the right choice, but aren't given the opportunity. For example, someone who would choose to go to college and start a great career but can't because they can't afford it and need to pay off medical bills.
if you mean that people are *incapable* of making the correct choice, I strongly disagree.
There are of course *some* people who are incapable of making correct choices, most notably the mentally ill. Reagan closed a ton of mental institutions in the 80s, leaving us with a ton of mentally ill homeless people and prisoners today.
There is no liberal sympathy for "Islamo-Nazi" terrorists.
On the extremities of the left? I don't that's true... and I do believe that it's a much larger force on that fringe than on the right.
There is a lot of support for the Palestinians, but not for Osama, Saddam, et al.
No. However, I do agree with his paragraph about anti-Americanism which I think is extremely well put.
His claim is that liberals are against America because we are powerful. I think this stems from many on the right's complete inability to differentiate criticism of American policies from hatred of America. The fact is, America does a lot of bad things (like Gitmo, which you don't want to bring in) and deserves criticism for them. It's simply factual that we have often been the bad bully, installing dictatorships, starting wars and wars-by-proxy, etc.
Just because America is big and powerful doesn't mean that we aren't also in the wrong a lot of the time. Remember that we supported both Saddam Hussein AND Osama bin Laden. We've killed far more Iraqi civilians than bin Laden killed Americans. (Hell, we've killed more Americans in Iraq than bin Laden killed Americans.) We export arms to Very Bad People. We're the only country to have used nuclear weapons in warfare. We torture, now.
I love America and it's potential which is why it hurts so badly that it's used for so much harm.
We do good as well, but it should be expected that we do good. Just as a parent of a kid who steals cars may not focus so much on the kid's good grades in school, we may tend to focus on the negative about our country because that's the part that needs attention.
There *are* some values differences as well as means differences. Homosexuality, abortion, taxation, etc. are issues about which the groups have a difference in values.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, though those differences are often smaller than people think. (See my previous posts on abortion, for example.) Taxation I don't think there are different values on.
but the idea that they give people an easy way out is absurd
Poor choice of words on my part... Liberal policies reduce by too much the amount of effort needed to overcome obstacles because of their overestimation of those obstacles. If it were a slight overestimation, I would say that it better than a slight underestimation; but I'm referring to large overestimations combined with a poor understanding of what actually helps people overcome those obstacles.
For example, someone who would choose to go to college and start a great career but can't because they can't afford it and need to pay off medical bills.
Agreed, then. However, that particular example is an obstacle that almost everyone faces and overcomes by making sacrifices, along with taking out loans. One often sees a reluctance by some on the left to make those same sacrifices. I happen to think that government loans to students are pretty generous; but many students pile up credit card debt through horribly irresponsible spending that they have a lot of trouble making it.
There are of course *some* people who are incapable of making correct choices, most notably the mentally ill.
Of course. But I'm referring to those without medical issues.
I think this stems from many on the right's complete inability to differentiate criticism of American policies from hatred of America.
Disagree. The right is equally critical of American policies - it's a question of how that criticism is projected and the consequences of those criticisms and/or the policies affected by them.
Just because America is big and powerful doesn't mean that we aren't also in the wrong a lot of the time.
Of course.
Totaling up numbers of dead is meaningless - Pearl Harbor vs. the dead of World War II? Slavery vs. the dead of the Civil War? Etc.
Just as a parent of a kid who steals cars may not focus so much on the kid's good grades in school, we may tend to focus on the negative about our country because that's the part that needs attention.
We must always be aware of the negatives in order to correct them and then actually work to correct them. But what is happening now in this country has nothing to do with either. It's about political points and little else... and that's a serious tragedy. (And that's on both sides of the aisle, though I seriously think it is worse from the left, likely because the right is in power.)
Taxation I don't think there are different values on.
ReplyDeleteLiberals believe the government should have progressive taxation, conservatives range from wanting no taxation to flat to de facto regressive taxation. Some of it is due to different economic theories, but a lot of it is a values clash between the right to keep your money vs. the responsibility to pay back to society.
Liberal policies reduce by too much the amount of effort needed to overcome obstacles because of their overestimation of those obstacles.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Agreed, then. However, that particular example is an obstacle that almost everyone faces and overcomes by making sacrifices, along with taking out loans. One often sees a reluctance by some on the left to make those same sacrifices.
Sounds like you're a liberal on this issue, then. I'm not sure who you're talking about being reluctant to make those sacrifices, but who isn't reluctant to sacrifice?
I happen to think that government loans to students are pretty generous; but many students pile up credit card debt through horribly irresponsible spending that they have a lot of trouble making it.
That's not relevant here, although it is an example of large corporations taking advantage of people who make bad decisions. Conservatives might say it's the students' fault (which it is) but liberals point out the corporations are acting immorally and should be regulated. Note that the liberal view is more similar to the halakhic view on lending.
The right is equally critical of American policies - it's a question of how that criticism is projected and the consequences of those criticisms and/or the policies affected by them.
Those opposing war can always be derided as unpatriotic and cowardly. In today's sound-bite culture, it's almost impossible to combat that message. I'm not sure why the similar derision of conservatives as callous and selfish isn't as strong in today's society. Somehow the Limbaughs of the world have managed to convince middle America that the left are a bunch of elitists even though in reality the right is overwhelmingly made up of white males who favor less progressive taxation.
We must always be aware of the negatives in order to correct them and then actually work to correct them. But what is happening now in this country has nothing to do with either. It's about political points and little else... and that's a serious tragedy. (And that's on both sides of the aisle, though I seriously think it is worse from the left, likely because the right is in power.)
Bush is bad in almost an unprecedented way. Whether you agree with our assessment that he is among the worst presidents ever, you must admit the left believes it. Strongly opposing him, then, is not about "scoring points" but about trying to stop the bleeding. Furthermore, it's the right who has a coordinated media propaganda machine in FOX, talk radio, Drudge, etc. They really are all about scoring points.
If you'll recall, the real "point scoring" started with the attacks on the Clintons. It's only gotten uglier. Someone had FOX on in the gym yesterday and I was just disgusted by how mean-spirited it was. They were discussing the Edwards thing, but managed to turn the whole thing into a criticism of Katie Couric, while simultaneously airing her most probing questions and cutting off Edwards's answers to make him look petty and selfish.
For example, in the interview they took film from, Edwards said when asking about putting work before his family something like, "it's not a job. Being a lawyer was a job. It's not work... It's service."
I don't know if you saw the interview, but it was obviously heartfelt, and the idea of president as service is both inspiring and a great answer to the question of why he's pressing on.
FOX cut him off right before "It's service." Then they went to a story about how Elizabeth Edwards loves to talk and that she's continuing on the campaign trail.
Liberals believe the government should have progressive taxation, conservatives range from wanting no taxation to flat to de facto regressive taxation. Some of it is due to different economic theories, but a lot of it is a values clash between the right to keep your money vs. the responsibility to pay back to society.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's *quite* correct. Conservatives are generally accepting of progressive taxation even if they think a flat tax is more fair. Nobody reasonable thinks there should be no tax; many suggest a consumption tax. The question really is what taxation is for: Assuming it is to maximize how much the government receives to support important expenditures (defense, transportation are the ones all agree on) without slowing the economy or being an unfair burden on anyone, the question then becomes what system (and in what degree) is most effective. This is one where even most Democrats I know will acknowledge they are "conservatives". [Side point: On Purim, I was shmoozing with a couple of friends, and we all could understand the liberal side on almost everything even if we disagree... except economics. It's one thing we're all hard to the right on.]
What you're talking about is mostly an issue by issues like an estate tax, which - really - is an unfair tax that doesn't hurt anybody but the person it's coming from. That's the purest example of a tax not hurting the economy... but it clearly is being taken only because it can. (Personally, I think it still slightly hurts the economy, and most richer people can get around it while most middle-class people cannot.)
Liberal policies reduce by too much the amount of effort needed to overcome obstacles because of their overestimation of those obstacles.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
In other words, policies which encourage dependencies are generally bad. Ironically, this is the same argument liberals are using (fairly to some extent) about Iraq; we're allowing their army to be dependent on the US doing its dirty work. If you'd like examples I can put those in as well.
Sounds like you're a liberal on this issue, then. I'm not sure who you're talking about being reluctant to make those sacrifices, but who isn't reluctant to sacrifice?
Not sure how that's liberal, but I'm generally closer to the middle than I appear. :) As for sacrifices, go poll a college campus and ask them if they would be willing to go without a number of items that they have; if they're willing to work 5-8 hours a day at the same time they're in college; etc. A lot will say yes, but then not follow through. It's quite disheartening, actually.
That's not relevant here, although it is an example of large corporations taking advantage of people who make bad decisions. Conservatives might say it's the students' fault (which it is) but liberals point out the corporations are acting immorally and should be regulated. Note that the liberal view is more similar to the halakhic view on lending.
This is a tough one - for responsible students, these corporations are doing them a huge favor. And I'm generally not in favor of restricting people from making their own decisions, however bad. This is something that should be addressed with better HS economics classes and perhaps a requirement to study Finance 101. And I've long felt that Accounting 101 may be the most important class for any person to take. The relevance was to note how people dig themselves into a hole for life. I don't think people realize how much those poor decisions early affect their later ability to invest and save, indirectly. It's why even conservatives are generally very favorable to student loans - the early savings cuts down on so many problems later on. (And it's similar to why SocSec needs to be revamped a certain way.)
Those opposing war can always be derided as unpatriotic and cowardly. In today's sound-bite culture, it's almost impossible to combat that message. I'm not sure why the similar derision of conservatives as callous and selfish isn't as strong in today's society. Somehow the Limbaughs of the world have managed to convince middle America that the left are a bunch of elitists even though in reality the right is overwhelmingly made up of white males who favor less progressive taxation.
I don't think that's true. Here in NYC [and in Chicago, LA, and Cleveland], it's accepted as fact that conservatives are callous and selfish. If I ask friends why they're Democrats, the most common answer is "because I care about other people" or some other garbage like that (as if Republicans do not). And I don't think the last statement is true; you'd have to join me at the monthly meetings I go to to believe me, though. :)
Bush is bad in almost an unprecedented way. Whether you agree with our assessment that he is among the worst presidents ever, you must admit the left believes it. Strongly opposing him, then, is not about "scoring points" but about trying to stop the bleeding. Furthermore, it's the right who has a coordinated media propaganda machine in FOX, talk radio, Drudge, etc. They really are all about scoring points.
Obviously I completely disagree. The left has a much greater coordinated media with the NYTimes, LATimes, ChiTribune, and every other major broadcast network + CNN and the blogosphere (which leans hard left). Talk radio thrives on being what the MSM is not - a source of more information that you aren't getting. And I've oft-mentioned that Bush is a top-10 President, we just won't call him that for 40 years. :) As for the point-scoring, I completely disagree. None of what is being proposed actually changes policy - they're all about making non-binding statements. I would have greater respect if they would be putting forth bills that had a chance of standing up, but they aren't doing so. The latest "pull out by '08" is a perfect example of that: Knowing that it will be vetoed is only done to force Bush to do just that. There was no effort to compromise in any way nor come up with a reasonable suggestion. Moreover, the hope is that Bush will feel pressure to listen anyway, and then Clinton or Obama would never have to actually deal with the issue, which is political suicide for them.
As for when this all started, Sen. Moynihan (D) blamed Clinton. He was the first President to specifically implement policy that would antagonize the other side, completely uncaring as to how this would tear apart the country. It's quite a shame, and I don't know how this will ever be fixed short of a third-party coming in the middle (which I'd love). If Obama and someone like Brownback win their respective nominations, we may actually see one, too. :)
I didn't see the Edwards interview, but it sounds pretty bad. On the other hand, Olbermann, Matthews, et al are much more disgusting in interviews. Their bias is blindingly obvious.
This is one where even most Democrats I know will acknowledge they are "conservatives".
ReplyDeleteToday's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans, fiscally. We really are conservatives by American standards. (And, unlike the Republicans, we're actually responsible about it, but that's for another conversation.)
On Purim, I was shmoozing with a couple of friends, and we all could understand the liberal side on almost everything even if we disagree... except economics.
I can't respond to this without knowing what you consider the "liberal side" of economics. Democrats aren't communists, but we do believe in more progressive taxation and providing a basic minimum to all citizens, including health care, minimum wage, etc.
The estate tax hurts nobody except children who did nothing to earn the money they would inherit.
(Personally, I think it still slightly hurts the economy, and most richer people can get around it while most middle-class people cannot.)
It does not even apply to middle-class people.
In other words, policies which encourage dependencies are generally bad.
Agreed. But that's not the same thing as helping those who really are dependent.
I don't think people realize how much those poor decisions early affect their later ability to invest and save, indirectly.
Most people are bad at math. They're even worse at it when they try to use intuition rather than calculation. (Intuition doesn't work with geometric growth -- consider what many kids would estimate the amount of money would be if they had to pay a penny the first day, two the second day, four the third, etc., for a month.)
I don't think that's true. Here in NYC [and in Chicago, LA, and Cleveland], it's accepted as fact that conservatives are callous and selfish.
Well, yeah, in liberal havens. But the pseudopopulists like Hannity and O'Reilly have convinced a lot of Americans that Democrats are the party for the elite.
Obviously I completely disagree. The left has a much greater coordinated media with the NYTimes, LATimes, ChiTribune, and every other major broadcast network + CNN and the blogosphere (which leans hard left).
The mainstream media is not left in remotely the same way that talk radio and FOX are right. The latter are essentially extensions of the RNC while the former fall over themselves trying to prove that they are impartial. They may lean left socially, but they lean right on matters fiscal and military. Blogs tend to lean libertarian more than anything else. It's just hard to tell because everybody's so against Bush right now.
The latest "pull out by '08" is a perfect example of that: Knowing that it will be vetoed is only done to force Bush to do just that. There was no effort to compromise in any way nor come up with a reasonable suggestion.
Bush flatly rejected every possible compromise. Remember that bipartisan commission? Ignored.
Moreover, the hope is that Bush will feel pressure to listen anyway, and then Clinton or Obama would never have to actually deal with the issue, which is political suicide for them.
That's awfully cynical. How do you know what's in their heads? Do you think they really don't care about Iraq, our soldiers, or our country?
As for when this all started, Sen. Moynihan (D) blamed Clinton. He was the first President to specifically implement policy that would antagonize the other side, completely uncaring as to how this would tear apart the country.
You're talking about Mr. Triangulation? Mr. Don't-ask-don't-tell? Mr. Welfare Reform? I don't get it.
didn't see the Edwards interview, but it sounds pretty bad. On the other hand, Olbermann, Matthews, et al are much more disgusting in interviews. Their bias is blindingly obvious.
You do realize Matthews voted for Bush in 2000, right? :-) He's a blowhard, but not a die-hard leftist. Olbermann's a leftist, yes. But he's a nobody on MSNBC. A freaking anchor from FOX went straight to being Bush's press secretary and nobody batted an eye! You should really read up on FOX and how stories are handed down from on high and stuff. There is no parallel for FOX on the left. I honestly think you'll be appalled.
All in all, I don't think we disagree too seriously on what's right. We just point the blame for what's wrong in opposite directions. That's probably what the giant green lizards secretly running everything want us to do.
All in all, I don't think we disagree too seriously on what's right. We just point the blame for what's wrong in opposite directions. That's probably what the giant green lizards secretly running everything want us to do.
ReplyDeleteAMEN. :D
Today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans, fiscally. We really are conservatives by American standards. (And, unlike the Republicans, we're actually responsible about it, but that's for another conversation.)
Agreed. And Republicans are today's progressives, especially on economics and defense.
Democrats aren't communists, but we do believe in more progressive taxation and providing a basic minimum to all citizens, including health care, minimum wage, etc.
Depending on how you mean that, I don't think we disagree. The liberal side of economics would be the socialist end, which, again, I don't think even most Democrats are. What's silly is that Democratic politicians cater to the far left to win primaries and (at least say they will) implement policies that don't work and that almost nobody is in favor of.
A basic minimum, by the way, runs into that tricky "dependency" zone. If we take care of everyone's basic minimums, there will be those who simply are content to stay that way. [I'm not talking about people with disabilities et al.] That's why I really liked aspects of Bush's SOTU address where he wanted to make it a tax write-off: If you work, your health insurance can be written off and you'll get back more tax money. That's an inducement to people to not be dependent. Perhaps it needs to be tweaked, but the basic idea was a good one. Side note: Personally, I am strongly against UHC as currently proposed.
The estate tax hurts nobody except children who did nothing to earn the money they would inherit.
But that's a ridiculous way of looking at it. Parents aren't allowed to save for their children? They can't pass their estates along to their family? It should be the parents' choice where all that money goes - not the government's.
It does not even apply to middle-class people.
What's the current threshold for the estate tax? What is the threshold proposed by Dems? The lower that gets, the more it hits the middle-class. Of course, AMT is worse, but that's another issue.
Most people are bad at math. They're even worse at it when they try to use intuition rather than calculation.
Which is why we need to teach them. We know that poor education is a cause of poverty; this is a great way to combat that.
How is it that Ross Perot managed to actually win a small percentage of the vote in '92? Because as weird as he was, he was a billionaire who set up basic pie charts and sat there doing "ads" where he explained economics to people in a way they could understand. The media and politicians (though mostly the media) have turned elections into sound bytes and "breaking stories" about nothing. I've always wondered what would happen if a serious contender would get up for an hour and actually explain - clearly - why he/she feels certain policies should be carried out a certain way. No interruptions, no debates, no questions - just explain it. I think that candidate would win in a landslide.
But the pseudopopulists like Hannity and O'Reilly have convinced a lot of Americans that Democrats are the party for the elite.
I'm not so sure that's true, but I haven't spent much time over the last few years outside of liberal havens.
The mainstream media is not left in remotely the same way that talk radio and FOX are right.
I don't think you realize just how implicit most of their stuff is. I think that that is much worse than what FOX does. They write like it's a given Bush is a terrible President, that the Iraq war was doomed from the beginning and there's nothing positive coming from there, etc. (And you're thinking, "right!") But that's the point - we're so used to getting fed one side we think that's the middle... and it's not. That's why I don't get my news from any major news network most of the time. (Including Fox.)
Blogs tend to lean libertarian more than anything else.
Some, such as Instapundit, yes. But the major forces in the blogosphere are still Kos, Atrios, Huffington Post, etc.
Bush flatly rejected every possible compromise. Remember that bipartisan commission? Ignored.
That bipartisan commission spent half its time blaming Israel. Again, I really should get you added to this email list from a medic we know who sends out an e-mail every day from Iraq. There's a huge difference between what we hear and what they do and see. And those 25,000 troops make quite a difference.
That's awfully cynical. How do you know what's in their heads? Do you think they really don't care about Iraq, our soldiers, or our country?
Of course not. But they probably think it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in terms of pulling the troops out, and would much rather not deal with it. Think about it this way: If Bush pulls them out, and then Clinton is President, what happens - if Iraq falls apart, no troops die, and she blames Bush. If it doesn't fall apart, she gets to say she was right that pulling out the troops was not just good for us but for Iraq. Win-win, no troops die either way. But if he leaves them in? Then she has to deal with it the same way he does now... and it's a lot harder to risk the Middle East falling apart under your watch then under your predecessor's.
You're talking about Mr. Triangulation? Mr. Don't-ask-don't-tell? Mr. Welfare Reform? I don't get it.
Welfare reform was good. For the rest... I'll try to get the exact story from someone who was in the Oval Office when it happened and get back to you. But Moynihan told Clinton off, and he still didn't listen.
You do realize Matthews voted for Bush in 2000, right? :-)
Whoopie. :P
Olbermann's a leftist, yes. But he's a nobody on MSNBC.
I don't know about that...
What's silly is that Democratic politicians cater to the far left to win primaries and (at least say they will) implement policies that don't work and that almost nobody is in favor of.
ReplyDeleteIn a two-party system with primaries, each party must cater to extremists. It's an inevitable result of the system. The far left is at least as scary as the far right. It's the extremes, not the direction, which makes things scary. Hitler was a "rightist" and Stalin a "leftist." Can you imagine having to vote for one or the other?
A basic minimum, by the way, runs into that tricky "dependency" zone. If we take care of everyone's basic minimums, there will be those who simply are content to stay that way.
With a minimum wage, this is no problem. Someone wants to work a minimum wage job forever, it doesn't hurt anybody. With healthcare, I can see what you mean, but I think that kind of tough love is too tough and not enough love. Besides, they'll just use the much more expensive resources of emergency rooms if we don't give them decent healthcare.
But that's a ridiculous way of looking at it. Parents aren't allowed to save for their children? They can't pass their estates along to their family? It should be the parents' choice where all that money goes - not the government's.
It's not like the tax is 100%! We're talking about taxing part of (not seizing in its entirety) money after the first four million dollars. Cry me a river, Paris Hilton.
What's the current threshold for the estate tax?
I'm pretty sure it's four million.
Which is why we need to teach them. We know that poor education is a cause of poverty; this is a great way to combat that.
Easier said than done. Most adults are bad at math, too.
I've always wondered what would happen if a serious contender would get up for an hour and actually explain - clearly - why he/she feels certain policies should be carried out a certain way.
That would be great.
But that's the point - we're so used to getting fed one side we think that's the middle... and it's not.
There's a difference between non-partisan and always taking the middle position. If one side is wrong and the other right in matters of fact (not opinion), the media should not take the middle position. Frankly, I think the mainstream media go too far in attempting to be impartial. It's like the old joke, if Bush said the Earth was flat, the NY Times would print, "Earth flat? Views differ."
Some, such as Instapundit, yes. But the major forces in the blogosphere are still Kos, Atrios, Huffington Post, etc.
Drudge is more influential than all of them put together.
And those 25,000 troops make quite a difference.
Of course they do. The question is whether the difference will last once they're gone.
But they probably think it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in terms of pulling the troops out
Well, yeah. Obviously no one wants to inherit Bush's disaster. That doesn't mean they don't really want the troops out for nonpartisan reasons.
In a two-party system with primaries, each party must cater to extremists. It's an inevitable result of the system. The far left is at least as scary as the far right. It's the extremes, not the direction, which makes things scary.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but the far right has almost no power. The closest they have is Pat Buchanan, and he's a joke. The far left? MoveOn, Kos, etc.? They have a nice hold on the Democratic Party.
With a minimum wage, this is no problem. Someone wants to work a minimum wage job forever, it doesn't hurt anybody.
Agreed, unless the minimum wage keeps rising. (Though the economic effect of the minimum wage is generally negative.)
With healthcare, I can see what you mean, but I think that kind of tough love is too tough and not enough love. Besides, they'll just use the much more expensive resources of emergency rooms if we don't give them decent healthcare.
It's a hard line to draw between the tough and love. It simply should not be the responsibility of others to pick up the tabs of those who don't get their own healthcare... yet on healthcare, I am more likely to give a bit. That's why I really liked Bush's plan - *get* them basic healthcare and insurance, make it worth their while, and everyone saves.
It's not like the tax is 100%! We're talking about taxing part of (not seizing in its entirety) money after the first four million dollars.
The percentage is meaningless - it's still not theirs to take. As for the level, I believe Dems wanted it lowered further.
Easier said than done. Most adults are bad at math, too.
Still, it's far more worth it to try educating everyone (which is good for them in general) than saying "well, nobody is going to get this, so let's just give everyone money [and/or screw some corporations] because they can't get it."
There's a difference between non-partisan and always taking the middle position. If one side is wrong and the other right in matters of fact (not opinion), the media should not take the middle position.
Agreed...
Frankly, I think the mainstream media go too far in attempting to be impartial.
...and disagree.
Drudge is more influential than all of them put together.
I don't think so. I never even read Drudge.
Of course they do. The question is whether the difference will last once they're gone.
Of course not. Which is why they (all) need to stay. :)
Well, yeah. Obviously no one wants to inherit Bush's disaster. That doesn't mean they don't really want the troops out for nonpartisan reasons.
That's not quite what I said. But they definitely don't want it for political reasons.
Man, you need to come meet me for lunch. There are certain things I'm not permitted to write about that apply strongly to all of this. :)
Agreed, but the far right has almost no power. The closest they have is Pat Buchanan, and he's a joke. The far left? MoveOn, Kos, etc.? They have a nice hold on the Democratic Party.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me? Bush IS the far right. He supported amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. Granted, he hasn't gotten much done for them and he parts ways with them on immigration, but they surely have a lot of influence. There are 150 graduates of Regent University serving in the Bush Administration. The only Democratic president since 1975 was the centrist Bill Clinton. The left blogosphere's darling Howard Dean was done after the first caucus in 2004. Most Democrats at the national level won't even support gay marriage.
Agreed, unless the minimum wage keeps rising.
It hasn't risen in ten years. It's nowhere near the amount it would have to be to hurt the economy significantly.
That's why I really liked Bush's plan - *get* them basic healthcare and insurance, make it worth their while, and everyone saves.
Sounds great. So where's their healthcare?
The [estate tax] percentage is meaningless - it's still not theirs to take.
If the government is allowed to tax, which we both agree, why aren't they allowed to tax inheritances? One could make the argument that they shouldn't, but it's absurd to say government has the right to tax income, consumption, gifts, etc., but inheritances are off limits.
As for the level, I believe Dems wanted it lowered further.
Actually, I was wrong before. They wanted to raise it to four million (per couple) from two million. Republicans want to simply repeal it.
Still, it's far more worth it to try educating everyone (which is good for them in general) than saying "well, nobody is going to get this, so let's just give everyone money [and/or screw some corporations] because they can't get it."
Of course I support education, but there should be limits on taking advantage of the innumerate.
Drudge is more influential than all of them put together.
I don't think so. I never even read Drudge.
Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage. Show me a liberal blog that has that much influence.
Of course not. Which is why [the troops] (all) need to stay. :)
Forever? The point is, we don't appear to be making any headway. It's gotten worse over there ever year for the last 3 or so.
Man, you need to come meet me for lunch. There are certain things I'm not permitted to write about that apply strongly to all of this. :)
Sounds intriguing. I'll strongly consider it next time I'm in NY. :-)
The left blogosphere's darling Howard Dean was done after the first caucus in 2004.
ReplyDelete...and only because of his "YAAAAH!!" Kerry wasn't pretty far left? Look at his stances and rating (darn, forgot the site). He just wasn't AS left as Dean.
I'm sorry, Bush isn't far right. What's far right besides the amendment which went nowhere? See what the Buchanans et al want, vs. what he's actually proposed. It's not at all comparable. Now do the same on the left - much closer, even in Hillary's camp. (And again, we really need to do lunch so I can tell you more. :) )
It hasn't risen in ten years. It's nowhere near the amount it would have to be to hurt the economy significantly.
But the Dem proposal would make it that way.
Sounds great. So where's their healthcare?
Where are the Dems speaking out in support of his plan?
Actually, I was wrong before. They wanted to raise it to four million (per couple) from two million. Republicans want to simply repeal it.
$2 million hits a nice percentage of the middle class, particularly in big cities, if they own their property.
If the government is allowed to tax, which we both agree, why aren't they allowed to tax inheritances?
I doubt you're arguing that just because something is allowed is should be done. Of course it's allowed - it's just wrong.
It makes sense to tax consumption the most - you get taxed on what you use. For whatever reason, our system taxes income instead (and should be changed, but ok), and that makes *some* sense because it's what you get out of the country so to speak. But inheritance? That is simply taxing (already taxed) money simply because you can, and that's wrong.
I think it's wrong to tax gifts as well, but that may be more to stop people from shifting money to those who aren't required to pay taxes, so that at least makes sense.
Of course I support education, but there should be limits on taking advantage of the innumerate.
Of course. But going on a witch hunt of credit card companies for the stupid actions of college students (who really, at their age and maturity level, SHOULD know better) seems a bit much. And my point is the *focus* should be on the education to make sure there is no bleeding, not on the bleeding itself. It's like treating a stab wound by mopping the blood. That really doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it a bit less messy. (Oooh, I like that analogy!)
That was Medved's point in the article, and I guess we've proven it: Conservatives focus on making the right choice in the first place, while liberals focus on softening the blow of bad ones. :D
Show me a liberal blog that has that much influence.
It's called CBS. :)
The point is, we don't appear to be making any headway. It's gotten worse over there ever year for the last 3 or so.
That's where poor media coverage of the other angle is really hurting this country. 40% of the people don't trust FOX on the good news, and another third get drilled in their head every day that it's all going to pot despite the good news. If people would see the "good news from Iraq" (which is pages and pages long each time) I guarantee their opinions would change. But you have news directors who say that their "job" is to present the "other view" from the administration, which is pure idiocy - but that's what they actually do. (Check the archives of Best of the Web for that one - it's a doozy.)
Sounds intriguing. I'll strongly consider it next time I'm in NY. :-)
Nu, how often is that? :)
Kerry wasn't pretty far left? Look at his stances and rating (darn, forgot the site). He just wasn't AS left as Dean.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Kerry is definitely more to the left than Dean. But he wasn't elected because of the left, he was elected because people (not me, I voted Edwards) idiotically thought he was the most "electable" of the Dems.
I'm sorry, Bush isn't far right. What's far right besides the amendment which went nowhere?
Well, not traditionally "right," more authoritarian "right." Except that authoritarianism isn't really right or left. But it's still the extreme of the GOP that favors it, if that makes any sense. Anyway, I'm talking about being on the opposite side of a majority of Americans on several major issues. He's sided with or made serious concessions to the right-most (read "most loyal to the GOP") people on stem-cell research, Iraq, tax cuts, gay marriage, etc. He's done nothing (other than immigration, which I conceded up front) that tilts opposite his party like Nixon's EPA, Clinton's welfare reform, Bush I's raising of taxes, etc. He's a hard-line partisan.
$2 million hits a nice percentage of the middle class, particularly in big cities, if they own their property.
You have a seriously skewed view of what the "middle class" is. Less than 5% of American families have even $1.6 million in net worth. How can $2 million possibly represent "a nice percentage of the middle class?" If the Democrats had raised it to $4 million, it would only apply to the top 1 or 2% of the entire country. That's not middle class.
I doubt you're arguing that just because something is allowed is should be done. Of course it's allowed - it's just wrong.
I thought you were saying it wasn't allowed -- "The [estate tax] percentage is meaningless - it's still not theirs to take." Sorry for the misunderstanding.
But inheritance? That is simply taxing (already taxed) money simply because you can, and that's wrong.
I don't see why it's any more "simply because you can" than income or consumption, but whatever. There are a lot of benefits to taxing estates, like increasing charitable contributions and preventing the concentration of wealth and permanent overclass.
And my point is the *focus* should be on the education to make sure there is no bleeding, not on the bleeding itself.
You're setting up a straw man. Nobody's opposing education here. The question is just how much we're going to allow corporations to take advantage of people's stupid decisions. You ignored my point about halakha, but I think it's an interesting one. Why do you think the rabbis (or God) forbid charging interest? If they could forbid all interest, why can't the U.S. government at least limit interest to something reasonable. (18% is not reasonable.) The Republican party wants to prevent people from using pornography, drugs, and gambling, but somehow corporations screwing college kids is okay? They can prevent gay marriage from hurting us but not predatory lending?
Conservatives focus on making the right choice in the first place, while liberals focus on softening the blow of bad ones. :D
Or, liberals admit reality and conservatives don't. See also harm reduction and drug abuse and "abstinence-only" sex ed.
Show me a liberal blog that has that much influence.
It's called CBS. :)
Don't deflect; admit it when you're wrong. :-) The conservative blogs have more influence.
The point is, we don't appear to be making any headway. It's gotten worse over there ever year for the last 3 or so.
That's where poor media coverage of the other angle is really hurting this country.
The Pentagon must be reading too much DailyKos, huh? From the other post, which you responded to but must not have read:
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military for the first time Wednesday said in a new report that some of the violence in Iraq can be described as a civil war.
In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.
This is not some CBS conspiracy. Those are the facts on the ground.