Loyal reader
Nonnie submitted a comment that included the following:
If you want the gov't to take care of everyone's problems, higher taxes to fund more social programs, appeasement of international aggressors, etc, then you prefer the Democratic party.
If you believe in more personal responsibility and less reliance on the gov't to solve all of your problems, less gov't intrusion in your life, lower taxes, a strong national defense, then you are probably Republican.
I couldn't leave that unanswered. I ended up with a whole 'nother post. I guess Nonnie inspired me... or maybe it was just the aroma of brownies
Mrs. Madville Times is whipping up for the
Lake County Dems Crazy Days Bake Sale tomorrow!
Sorry, Nonnie, but it sounds like you're paying too much attention to Rush Limbaugh and not enough attention to the real world. My wife and I both owned the Rush Limbaugh books when he first came out. We loved his rhetoric. We thought he was really sticking it to those godless, wimpy Democrats who wanted to destroy America, and we wanted to be on his side.
Then... well, my wife and I followed different intellectual paths (different readings, different experiences, etc.) But here's what we realized:
--We believe in personal responsibility, but not when it translates into selfishness that leads us to ignore the suffering of our neighbors. Call it Christian, call it communitarian, but our personal responsibility goes hand in hand with our social responsibility. Neither the Bible nor secular social contract theory says, "Do your own thing and to heck with everyone else." Your repsonsibility to others is more than just not throwing a punch at them. The moment you step into society, you are accepting the burden of common responsibility for the general welfare. You agree to pay taxes; you agree to help build roads, support a military, fund police and fire protection, and come to the aid of others when they need it. The GOP talks personal responsibility, but too often their talk devolves into license for rich guys to do whatever they want without regard for the impact on others and for elected officials to sit back and do nothing when really they have an obligation (Biblically, philosophically, take your pick) to actively promote the general welfare. That's not enough for this family. We want to exercise personal and social responsibility. That principle leads us to feel more (though not perfectly) at home with the Democrats.
--We believe in less reliance on the government to solve all of our problems, but when we turned down Rush, we started noticing how much corporations rely on government to solve their problems, and how perfectly happy Republicans seem to be to offer that help to those least needy entities in the world. Nationally we see subsidies to wealthy corporate farms, tax credits to rich ethanol plant owners but not the actual corn producer, lucrative contracts to private contractors (i.e. mercenaries) taking the place of accountable military personnel, and military adventures in Iraq to maintain profits for Big Oil. In South Dakota, we see indirect support for corporations: the state picks up the tab for education, which makes it possible for Citibank and other businesses to profit from a well-educated workforce, but the GOP resists any suggestion that those corporations ought to pay their fair share for that education system through an income tax (hey, what happened to responsibility for corporations?). Dems aren't pure on this issue, either: everyone in government seems susceptible to lobbying and big campaign donations, but we started to see the Republican rhetoric on this issue more as a hammer with which to bash the poor but never to challenge the way government props up big business.
Speaking of hammers, suppose I have a bunch of nails to pound in. Big nails. There's a hammer over on the table, one that my friends and I each contributed a buck to purchase. But Nonnie told me I should rely on myself, not others, so I'm not going to use that community hammer. I'll stomp on these nails, whack 'em with my fist and my skull, maybe dig up a rock and pound away, but by gum, I'll not stoop to using that hammer that we all paid for.
Or, I could just pick up that hammer, take a few swings, and get the job done right.
Government is a tool. It's not King George or Fidel controlling our lives. Our government is our tool, our creation. We don't have to use it to solve every problem, but it's silly to reject government when it is the best tool for the job. Sometimes government isn't the answer; sometimes it is.
You and the crankier, usually louder members of the GOP take the rhetorically easy but intellectually empty route of simply shouting "Government bad!" My wife and I used to as well, until we realized that the mature approach is to seriously evaluate social problems, determine their causes and impacts, and decide when government action would be an "intrusion" and when government action might be the most effective and even most moral route to a solution. We then have to work hard to keep an eye on our government -- on ourselves -- and make sure we doesn't abuse the power we grant ourselves as government to solve that particular problem. Such oversight and restraint requires much more vigilance and active participation in the system, but that's what democracy is about. Those principles lead us to feel more (though not perfectly) at home with the Democrats.
--My wife and I believe in lower taxes whenever possible. As Lake Herman Sanitary District board member, I've overseen a nearly 60% reduction in the district tax assessment, largely because the district is simply bankrolling money but not doing anything with it. There just isn't much for our little government to do, and I'm not going to go looking for work for it to burn up tax dollars on.
At the same time, our social responsibility means we have to fund schools, roads, cops, soldiers, firetrucks, and yes, welfare programs. We have to help each other. Heck, I just read an article yesterday by a follower of free-market theology who said
self-sufficiency is the road to poverty. I don't agree with everything that author says, but basic Adam Smith economics says that rarely can individuals do everything for themselves as efficiently as they can if they share their talents in social cooperation through a market economy. How can Republicans cite that thinking on business and global trade yet ignore it when it comes to contributing taxes for services that are better performed by social cooperative effort than by individuals fending for themselves? We can all spend our individual dollars on health insurance from profiteering corporations who are answerable to shareholders, or we can contribute tax dollars toward a universal health care system answerable to every voter, regardless of income, and get better service for less overall cost. Only stubborn fools keep working alone when working together solves the problem.
"Lower taxes" doesn't work as a political principle, because, logically, it leads to the idea that the best society is one where there are no taxes and hence no government. But then you don't have a society; you have anarchy. Shouting "lower taxes" is rhetoricaly satisfying but intellectual empty. The real challenge is determining what functions we can and should provide for ourselves through our government and then determining the most fair and effective way to raise the tax revenue to pay for those functions. That principle leads us to feel more (though not perfectly) at home with the Democrats.
--My wife and I both believe in a strong national defense. I don't want Osama, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinajad, or any other radical nutjob hurting my family or anyone else in America. I want to be able to help other nations when they face similar dangers. Sometimes, a nation has to go kick butt.
But there are lots of ways to avoid ever having to go kick butt, ways well short of appeasement. Sure, your Osamas and your Kim Jong Ils, you probably can't talk with. But you can do an awful lot with sensible and fair economic, diplomatic, and even military policy that can minimize the ability of those psychos to convince people to follow them.
The talk about "I vote Republican because Republicans are strong" sounds like a bunch of macho BS.
Dennis Kucinich is as strong as any Republican candidate for his willingess to talk about peace, even when he knows people are going to call him a wimp for doing so. There can be as much strength in words and principle as in guns. We needed guns to beat Germany and Japan; but the lasting peace came from the words and principles we applied after the war in dealing justly with our former enemies. Because we believe in applying something more than macho BS to geopolitics, we feel more (though not perfectly) at home with the Democrats.
Nonnie, it sounds like you and I have the same core political beliefs. However, I would suggest (and I do this not as a personal attack -- I come not to tear down, but to build up) that your position is based more on rhetoric than reality. At the very least, I will contend that we can pursue every one of our shared core political beliefs from within the ranks of the Democratic Party. And believe me, as my wife and I involve ourselves more actively in politics, if we find the Democratic Party is not supporting our core beliefs, we will raise hell with our fellow Democrats until they see the light or until, as we have done before, we go shopping for another party more suited to our principles. (See? We're all about shopping and competition!) Nonnie, you are welcome to come with us.