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.
Actually Republicans aren't much better than Dems in cases of big government programs. It seems both parties are becoming more "Statist" (More big gov'mint!) than for the "common person"
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think a lot of people (myself included) think that government is a necessary evil. We go on the belief of a "Social Contract", where we sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have such services as roads, protection (internal and external), regulate foreign trade, etc.
Unfortunately, some in government feel that government is the end-all, be-all. In other words, the government should take care of it because normal people are unable to do it themselves. What an elitist insult!
I took an on-line quiz the other day, and I found out that my political leanings lean toward "Libertarian". In fact, they're dead solid Libertarian. I don't like calling myself that, because then you get grouped in with all the conspiracy-theorist nutjobs.
But perhaps people like me need to take the term back... make "Libertarian" mean something positive... Because the Democrats and Republicans sure as hell aren't doing themselves any favors!
don't you know that we're "fightin' 'em over 'der so we don't hav ta fight 'em over here"?!
ReplyDeleteduh!
Jackrabit1, I agree that both parties as entrenched organizations with long-standing connections to lobbyists and wealthy donors, have a tendency to work for special interests instead of the commonwealth. I have a big libertarian streak in me as well: for example, I don't like seatbelt and helmet laws, and I don't like federal involvement in education.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think government can be better than a "necessary evil." Again, I'll appeal to the hammer analogy... or maybe even better, a nail gun. It's a powerful tool, and you have to watch what you're doing with it. Put it in the hands of an idiot, and someone's going to get a nail through his skull. But learn how the nail gun works, be careful with it, and don't point it at anyone, and you can put down a heck of a lot of shingles so you're not up on that hot roof all day long.
Government is a tool. It is us [bad grammar deliberate]. Government requires care, study, and vigilance, but we can use it to solve problems without letting it take over our lives.
Ultimately, we can use government to maximize liberty (exactly what Libertarians want). That's the whole point of the social contract, in which we recognize that in the state of nature, with no rules, there's raw freedom but no liberty (you can do what you want, but you'll be so busy protecting yourself from thugs and yahoos that you won't really hav any choices in your life). We build the social contract/government to guarantee that people will have genuine freedom of will and action (that's liberty, freedom with that agreed, common guarantee ensuring it).
When government raises my taxes or keeps my taxes high to give corporations, lobbyists, and lawyers favors, it decreases my liberty. When it underfunds education, it leaves the lower class undereducated and thus less equipped to participate in democracy and the economy and fully enjoy their liberty. When government leaves health care in the hands of profiteering insurance corporations, it undermines my liberty to change jobs, pursue the work I'm best at (just because it pays less and won't cover my health premiums), and get preventative medical procedures that would keep me healthier and better able to enjoy my liberty.
See? just like with Nonnie, I share a core belief with you. The belief in liberty should be something positive. That's why we're Democrats: because we believe we can do positive things to help people have more real liberty.
And top of the morning to you, Michael! :-)
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just one of those who heed the words of Jesse "The Governor" Ventura...
ReplyDelete"If the government is going to do it FOR you, the government is going to do it TO you!
A healthy distrust of government isn't always a bad thing. They need to show a LOT more accountability, if they want to be called "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Unfortunately for these yahoos, the party line is more important than their actual job, and the first thing the do in each new term is look for ways to get re-elected. And the worst part of it is, we vote for them!
If we can term limit the President, why can't we do the same for these pieces of work!
We have term limits for every office, Jackrabit1. They're called elections. If we do our job as citizens, we can retain control of our government so that it remains "us" and not "them." It's not easy, but it's the goal we all must work for.
ReplyDeleteThe Republucrats were supposed to put in a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms
ReplyDeletein their so-called "Contract with America." What a joke!
The whole idea behind serving public office is to serve a few years, then go back into the private sector. Washington did it... so did Jefferson. Today's Republucrats and Demicans couldn't hold ol' George and Tom's trusses!
Robin Williams' character in "Man of the Year" had a good idea, if not improbably... Congressmen (and women) should be selected like people in Jury Duty!
You say we can control term limits by our votes on election day. If only that were true. It is, as far as it goes. But the problem lies before election day, actually this election cycle years before election day. It's the money that goes into the campaigns, the spins that candidates use, the lies they tell to get votes, the pork they use to buy votes, the spin and lies that media use to influence people to support the media's favorite candidates, etc. Unless people care enough to really reseach issues and candidates, all they hear is the spin and base their votes on that. And most people don't have the time or inclination to do that research needed to see behind the spin. So in reality saying we have term limit control is not completely true.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously research, which is good. (Even if according to my political beliefs, you have come to some erroneous conclusions!) But the majority of people don't. They rely on what they hear in the media, and a biased media will create a biased electorate.
Just my take on politics this morning! Still working on a rebuttal (but not a professional debator one) of your post on my post.
This is an interesting evolution of the discussion, and not entirely irrelevant. Both Nonnie and Jackrabit1 address a key factor in why government does feel so much more like them than us: many people don't vote, don't do their own research, don't deliberate beyond the sound bites they hear in the media, which does an incomplete job of covering the issues.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a question of people being stupid or smart (or even being "professional debaters," a label that people keep tossing into comments here -- what gives?). A lot of people don't participate in politics or don't participate enough because they're too busy struggling to make ends meet. Many also worry that speaking up may also get them in trouble, either with the government or maybe just their boss who donates big money to certain candidates.
As a voter and as a teacher, I operate under the assumption that we can handle democracy. Everybody can learn about the issues and cast votes informed by something other than propaganda from Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. They have to make the effort to see beyond the big-money campaigns and marketing slogans corporate interests use to push their candidates and issues.
I can see the merits of a citizen serving in government for just a few years and then returning to private life. At the same time, there are intelligent, public-spirited individuals whose best place is in government. If they want to serve and if the voters are happy with that service, let thsoe skilled legislators keep serving.
Term limits are a blind, blunt instrument, a way to let voters be lazy. If we need to kick someone out of government, we should do it ourselves through the regular election, not through a law that will occasionally and inevitably deny us the chance to elect the best person for the job.
In politics, it has often been said that "if you throw dirt, you're digging a hole", but the best campaigns were always based on issues, not personalities or ideology of the parties. Both major parties are clinging to age-old ideologic differences, when the world has evolved far beyond those differences. People today want a "real" person addressing contemporary issues. That's why Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin has maintained such popularity. She is a Democrat, elected in a Republican state, who can cross the lines and for the most part, vote her conscience. Sure, she votes party line on some issues, but they are typically not issues that adversely affect her home state. Politicians of the future will continue to resemble "independent" thinking rather than traditional party thinking. I'd like to see campaigns based on voting records and issues rather than fluff and puff concepts.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that the federal government can do any better running health care than they do education?
ReplyDeleteAnon: great question, and one I've wondered about, too. On education, I oppose federal involvement, but on health care I support federal involvement. What gives?
ReplyDelete(1) Under a single-payer system, gov't doesn't run health care; it just pays the bills. That's an improvement over the status quo: insurance companies pay the bills grudgingly but try to control what doctors do much more than the government in a single-payer system does. Gov't running the payment means doctors have more freedom to just do their jobs.
(2) Government at all levels already pays for something like half of all medical expenses in America (Medicare and Medicaid; millions of federal, state, and local gov't employees, etc.) and manages to do so with just 2-3% administrative overhead, versus 30% administrative overhead (and yachts for executives) for private insurance. The government gives John Thune great health coverage; it could do so for the rest of us.
(3) We already have moved toward collectivizing health care with private insurance. Individuals said, "Gee, I can't afford health care on my own;" thus, they enter private insurance pools (when the companies can make a profit off them). Health care is only possible when we share each others' burdens. We could create an optimally efficient system by getting rid of the private bureaucracy of 300+ competing insurance plans (go to the hospital and see how many employees do nothing medical and spend their entire time just handling billing) and replacing it with one unified bureaucracy answerable to Congress and the people.
(4) No Child Left Behind does the opposite of single-payer health care: it tries to impose all sorts of controls and penalties but pays almost none of the bills. The government should leave the actual work of teaching to the professionals, the teachers, just as it should leave the actual work of healing to the doctors.
(5) David Bergan and I had an interesting conversation about risk pools and at what level we should impose the single-payer system. if feasible, I would be happy to see single-payer implemented at the state level, as folks are trying to do in California right now with Senate Bill 840. Is South Dakota big enough to feasibly form its own statewide risk pool? I don't know. But I can certainly see merits to keeping control of such a system as close to home as possible, which is the same position I take on education. We can definitely pay the bills for education at the local and state level.
(6) Imagine we ran education the way we run health care. Parents would buy education payment policies from 300+ different companies. They could send their kids only to the schools and the teachers who are on their education policy's approved provider list. If parents couldn't afford an education policy, their kids might get kicked out of school, or at least shunted toward the cheaper classrooms. If a kid flunked a class, the family's education premium would go up, or the company might drop them, and they wouldn't be able to buy coverage from anyone else. Madison High School would probably have to hire 4-5 office personnel who would handle nothing but billing (oops, there goes the rest of the music faculty). And one fifth of the money spent on education would go to private insurance companies who would maximize profits by denying coverage and win bonuses for doing so while working people went bankrupt because of unexpected education expenses.
(7) You know, Anon, a single-payer education system might not be so bad. We do it, in a way, here in South Dakota. Actually, it's a dual-payer system. Some communities, particularly the smaller ones, would not be able to fund a school district from their own tax base. We thus pool our money as a state and then divvy up the money in such a way that smaller, poorer towns that need a little extra boost get it and can give their kids a decent education (something we have a constitutional and moral obligation to provide).
(8) It comes down to what works. If people are hurting or dying, we help them. If we as a state can do that with our own resources and not have to rely on federal money, awesome. But if we need federal help to make sure people get health care, well, then let's quit fretting about old ideologies and just get the job done.
From the aforementioned letter:
ReplyDelete"For those who fear the ‘gubment getting into health care, think about it this way: the French have an Army – but ours is better. The Brits have a Navy and Air Force – but ours is better. The Canadians have a marvelous Coast Guard – but ours is better. China has a space program – but ours is better. Air traffic control is good in Europe, but ours is better. Ireland has a highway system, but ours is better.
"So why do you think our government couldn’t manage a universal health care program?"
Cory, you assertion that doctors would be free to practice medicine under universal health care is a hoot. Do you honestly think that if the government is the payor for medical care that they aren't going to exert control over how much they have to pay for Joe Blow's care? Do you honestly think that the doctors will not have to justify the care they think a particular patient needs? If you do, I think you are naive.
ReplyDeleteThere will be more red tape and criteria-based medical care etc than exists now. I'm not saying what we have now is perfect. I'm saying that universal health care with the federal gov't as payor will be a huge bureaucratic mess.
Again, Nonnie, you put rhetoric over reality. Doctors aren't free to practice medicine now: they have to get permission to help patients from the giant bureaucracy of profiteering insurance companies. The bureaucracy of the government (which is accountable to every voter) acting as the single payer has to be better than the existing bureaucracy of private insurers who only listen to people with money.
ReplyDeleteBesides, if the French, Brits, Canadians, Norwegians, and dozens of other nations can do it, don't you think America can do it even better? (See: Dems believe America can be the best in the world, too!)
First, regarding political ideology it doesn't make any sense to attribute the core attributes of any of the ideologies negatively and hope to understand them. The primary attribute should adequately describe why a person is motivated to believe in it. Liberalism values protecting people, especially protecting the weak and vulnerable in society. Conservatism values empowering people, especially in building strength through competition. Libertarianism values individual freedom above all else. Socialism values equality among people first.
ReplyDeleteThat is the breakdown of ideology as I see it. Political Parties on the other hand are a different animal. Parties are about power and policies, and are as necessary an evil as government itself. Democrats are no better or worse than Republicans. Whenever people point to them and say Republicrats! or Demo-cons! it strikes me as ridiculous. They are the same because before Party comes the fact that they are Politicians. The only way to get where they are is to play the media game, to align with interest groups, to learn doublespeak. And whether they are a politician to their core or if politician is just the chocolate shell around a creamy ideological center, they still play this game. There is no other choice.
Second, regarding government running of education. The government fails in teaching. Lets get rid of the Department of Education :) However, for consistent evaluation there should be standardized evaluations to establish the outcome of the independently crafted education they receive.
ReplyDeleteNobody should receive a high school diploma if they need any re-education in basics when they start college. Perhaps there should be 2 types of HS Diplomas. One being the basic 'I muddles through' diploma and the other certifying they wont need Algebra 050 or that useless freshman composition they force us to take because nobody can write worth a damn.
Third, The fix for Health Care is making it resemble an actual competitive market: more private enterprise (see 'profiteering') and less government.
ReplyDeleteGovernment mandated insurance without taking over anything at all would force insurance premiums down.
High deductible plans in combination with HSA accounts that are funded through paycheck deductions like Social Security. Instead of dropping into the abyss of the general fund with a treasury bill IOU slipped into a cabinet, the money goes into that persons medical account that they can deduct from at any time for expenses.
Increasing the governments role in early preventative health care and obliterating it from the high cost events would alter the landscape. How about a %80 coverage plan for prescription drugs, but only after those drugs are available as generics, 100% for seniors but no coverage at all until the drug patent has expired. The goal of government in health care should be a healthy population, not living a long time. It should give a very shallow universal coverage that would purposefully never replace the need for nearly everyone to buy private insurance.
How about eliminating personal liability for doctors, leaving criminal penalties and taking away their medical license forever. All responsibility for losses to a patient belong to the hospital. Nobody gets cash for pain and suffering.
Single-payer just sucks, sorry Cory.
Phaedrus, great posts! I agree with them all.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I a Democrat?
ReplyDeleteBecause Democrats are open-minded.