Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Thomas wrote:

nimh wrote:
There's few places in the world where a call for a basic minimum food+shelter standard is automatically construed to be a call for a socialist society in which "no one should have too much, and the difference between [the rich and the poor] should be very small". But this is one, apparently.

Judging from my own discussions with conservative Americans, online and off, what makes that call "socialist" is the automatic assumption that enforcing this basic standard is the responsibility of the state, as opposed to the responsibility of civil institutions such as private charities, churches, and so forth. The leftist fallacy, in the opinion of the people who make that charge, is to assume that society and state are identical, even though we know since Thomas Paine that they're not.

Didn't he also say "That government is best which governs least."? I don't think too many people have a problem with idea of food and shelter for everyone. The problem is in implementation. It's difficult to separate the gimme-gimme crowd from the truly needy, and no working stiff likes to see the free-food-charge-card used by their neighbor before they load the groceries into their brand new car. These card's are basically no different than passing out money... which is something Tommy Thompson has finally improved on, at least. We must try to avoid voting money from the public treasury into our own pockets.

A better solution, in my book would be to treat the problem itself. Soup-lines and bunk houses for those who can't demonstrate a legitimate reason for being needy. There needs to be some shame in drinking from the public trough, for those who don't need to, to discourage them from doing so. This country is rich enough to take in every immigrant who comes, as long as we're not trying to over do it. Forgive me one stereotype; but I think immigrants in general are the least likely to try and exploit our welfare system... if it isn't too cozy. They come for the opportunities, not the handouts. It makes me angry to see healthy people substitute the word entitlement for welfare... and around here, that's exactly what many do. That is where our welfare system fails miserably.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

I think the whole point of having "securing everyone food and shelter at the very least" as your values is that you feel that food and shelter, at least, should not be withheld on the basis of who "deserves" it. Should not first need to be "earned". It is the sense that no man deserves hunger or homelessness, no matter what mistakes he may have made and no matter what lack of talent he may suffer from - and that any nation as rich as Einherjar's, mine or yours can and should afford to make sure noone does end up hungry or homeless.

It's like a bottom line. To leave it up to people's ambition, ingenuity and talents to achieve everything beyond that, from just a decent working job to a house with a swimming pool, fine. But for a country as rich as ours to allow people to go without food or shelter and maintain that its none of our business and just all up to them, seems heartless. You probably call it "tough love" - I call it the disappearance of community.

I am on record for a very long time in my belief that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless. I think all reasonable liberals and conservatives share that belief and how it is accomplished is less important than that it be accomplished.

Beyond that, Thomas is quite right that the difference between the Democrat (liberal in this case) and Republican (conservative in this case) is in whether it is the responsibility of the state to ensure a minimum standard of food and shelter for all people regardless of what choices they make.

The liberal often says yes, it is the responsibility of the state, without reservation and will defend that policy with 1) it is the compassionate thing and 2) most of the less fortunate are victims of society; ie it is the fault of society that they are less fortunate, 3) it is appropriate for the state to take resources from the more fortunate to give to the less fortunate.

The conservative, who is much more likely to be personally charitably generous than is the liberal, does more often go with the 'tough love' concept on the belief that 1) true compassion is not a hand out but rather a hand up to a permanently better life, and 2) failing to allow people to experience the consequences of their behavior does them a cruel disservice and can even be life threatening, 3) it is immoral to confiscate wealth from Citizen A who honorably earned it in order to give to Citizen B who refused to get an education, learn a trade, work for a living, etc.

I know nobody, liberal or conservative, who is willing for people to freeze on the street at night or who is willing for people to go truly hungry or otherwise needlessly suffer. Maybe some might go out of their way to avoid being confronted with such, but I know nobody, once confronted, who would walk away and just let it happen without at least trying to help. Most Americans are by nature generous and compassionate people.

But you don't help people by creating and encouraging permanent underclasses. There is nothing wrong with requiring people to experience the dignity of working for their supper or a roof over their head at night when they are able. Private social services tend to do a better job of differentiating between the truly needy and those who just don't want to help themselves. The State should help out with the former. Let's let the truly compassionate deal with the rest.

0 Replies

Quote:

There needs to be some shame in drinking from the public trough, for those who don't need to, to discourage them from doing so.

I heartily disagree with this. It's not that hard to enforce regulations -- there is no reason not to have them and enforce them. Lots of hoops need to be jumped through before someone can get SSI or welfare.

I think it is far better to have the occasional scofflaw who loads groceries into his new car than to commit millions of needy people to the shame, degradation, and not least DANGER of the circumstances you describe.

One of my clients went through several homeless shelters -- she was raped and molested a few times, not the first time in her life, she dealt with it. But when her son was molested there, she lost it. I helped her do the labyrinthine paperwork to qualify for Section 8 housing and arranged for several temporary measures until her name came up on the waiting list. She had a horrific childhood, a terrible education, and yet was a positive, hard-working presence who benefited hugely from just one government-funded agency (that'd be me) focusing on her problems. There is no reason to purposely make her feel ashamed of her situation.

In addition to that, the scofflaws you are targeting wouldn't be impacted. They're already shameless.

0 Replies

And that was a hand up, Soz, not a hand out.

0 Replies

Thanks Thomas. For a moment I was confused as to whether we were discussing the universal problems of poverty or merely the malignant views of American conservatives. I am reassured.

I agree with your point about the limited effectiveness of government programs as compared to the public actions of private individuals and groups. Sadly however, history confirms that is generally not enough. For the rest we are left with the tradeoffs in government policy. I am pleased to see that the connection between government policies regarding social welfare and those involving immigration have been acknowledged in the discussion. Your comments on the invisible ways in which social democrat policies anywhere can be used to prohibit immigration were most apt. I suspect the open immigration policies of the United States have alleviated more poverty than any of our welfare programs. However, I doubt that I could solve the riddle of the right balance between competitiveness and protection in a modern society. Easy to see the defects of excesses in either direction: much harder to find the best net outcome.

0 Replies

Again the Platonic Dualism-the state vs society, well yes I suppose we are all to some degree social darwinists with vestiges of "human nature." On the other hand we no longer engage in cannibalism that might very well have been the result of the need for survival yet within the same context of human nature we have developed the capacity to blush (cognitive recognition of 'wrongness') and to faint under duress where we might have resorted to "fight or flight." Perhaps (and the sooner the better for this liberal) we shall cast off the bonds of Plato/Aristotle and recognise that the inherent dualism is, at best, an appendix without modern application in social survival. Maybe, just maybe we as humans can learn all over again that 'blushing' is recognition that "human nature" can be overcome and that Plato is dead. Or we can simply avoid the "reasons" for war and accept it as inevitable "human nature."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Finally, some leftwing politicians actually are anti-immigration in what they enact, though maybe not in what they say. Here in Germany for example, the tightening of the immigration laws happened under Social Democratic Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, only a few years after his social/liberal coalition greatly expanded the welfare state. [..]

There are ways of enacting xenophobic policies without making them look xenophobic, and the European Left is pretty good at it.

Well, of course every single government of the past twenty years has imposed progressively stricter policies and limits on immigration, asylum, family reunification - here at least that holds true. Every government party has tightened the immigration laws. So I dont really know what that shows, apart from that leftwing politicians are no stranger to sacrificing their principles when their electoral hold on a government position is at stake, either.

What I'm talking about is a leftwing politician or party that would take an anti-immigrant position relative to what other parties are saying. I..e., a leftist who would argue that the other leftwing parties and even the rightwing parties are not clamping down strictly enough. And who would argue so on the basis that only shutting down more of the influx would allow us to keep our welfare state.

I wouldnt vote for it, obviously. But I'm absolutely sure he'd drill into a market. There's something very odd about hundreds of thousands of former Labour voters massing towards the List Fortuyn (or the Flemish Block, or Haider's Freedom Party, etc), attracted as they are by its anti-immigration, pro-law and order stances, even as the Fortuynist (etc) politicians stridently propose cutting all the programmes and entitlements they had supported before and still benefit from. I'm not going into some kind of "those poor voters, they're cheated into voting someone that really isnt good for them" thing, forget that; I'm just convinced that a lot of List Fortuyn (etc) voters do actually disagree with the party's neoliberal market rhetorics, but vote for it anyway because no centre or left party represent the clampdown on immigration and integration they want, and feel much more strongly about still.

I think its probably also been a question of social control. Of course, when in government, you impose stricter immigration policies, whether you're left or right, thats apparently how it goes <rolls eyes>. But the choir of centre-left fellow-politicians, opinion makers, columnists and TV commentators that would fall upon a fellow-leftwinger if he'd cross over to the right of whatever the centre of the current integration debate is (to the right of the christian-democrats, say), probably helps stop anyone from trying - you'd be instantly excommunicated into the right-wing liberal/far right camp, after all.

But I think there's an electorate for it. And in my darkest of realpolitik dreams I sometimes wonder how it would change the electoral landscape - whether it would suck the Labour Party dry - or lure back the many white workers who now went (far) right. (In contrast with America, its not religious-cultural issues like abortion and gays that keep them there, those hardly play a role here at all.)

0 Replies

And yet here in the 'evil greedy etc etc etc' U.S., we have almost no recognizable immigration policy, our borders seem to be wide open, and we take care of the illegal immigrants right along with the non-citizens who are here legally and the legitimate citizenry including free medical, schooling, jobs, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, etc. etc. etc. What is the policy in Germany and the Netherlands re people in your country illegally?

Is it possible to draw the line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what is not so far as social service go, and yet be considered compassionate?

0 Replies

Nimn,

I wasn't specifically addressing anyone in particular. The left, and much of the Democratic Party, typically hold one, or more of those three positions. What they amount to is that everyone should have virtually equal wealth. No one should have too little, or too much. Those who have too little are entitled to be compensated, and those who have too much are expected to pay for it. Those who are in the bottom 5% of society are all assumed to be victims not responsible for their own condition. The top 5% (1.5 million Americans) are assumed to be a cabal of evil whose wealth was acquired by unsavory manipulation of the system. The left wants to redistribute the wealth by taxing the wealthy heavily to provide huge entitlement programs.

What is "too little" and what is "too much"? Who determines these things? I've yet to meet a person of property and means who believes that their wealth was unearned, tainted, and should be given to the first bagger they encounter on the street. Finding excuses for one's degraded socio-economic place in society is easy, but most often thats all it amounts to ... excuses. In the U.S. who is denied an education, or prevented from getting a job? Savings accounts aren't restricted to the wealthy, and anyone can start their own business. Whether one accumulates a lot of property and wealth depends far more on the individuals initiatives, efforts, skill, and dedication than anything else.

It is certainly true that some are more fortunate than others. One person may inherit a lot of resources (most often the result of an earlier generations initiative, effort, skill, dedication and foresight), while a second person may be born a penniless orphan. At the end their lives, the silver spoon kid may be a homeless bum and the orphan a multimillionaire. People are at their best when responsible for their own lives and fortunes. Each of us decides for ourselves what we want out of life, and how much effort we will make to transform dreams into reality. Some what to live like Donald Trump, are unwilling to work for it, and so they find excuses. The fact is that few of us will ever become super-wealthy, and few of us will become homeless beggars. Most will fall somewhere in between. We work hard to avoid the pit while aspiring for the stars for our children. Some of us fail many times before finding our niche. Only when a person gives up hope for a better life, and accepts the fool notion that they are a victim does their lives spiral down into despair.

The federal government has some terrible responsibilities. It must secure our safety from those who would literally destroy us. It must maintain international relationships that favor our system, citizens and economy. it is responsible for maintaining the currency and stable, but steady, economic growth. It provides us with an interstate system of communications and transportation to facilitate travel and trade. The federal government is bankrolls those projects and policies for internal improvement and international leadership that are too expensive for States or private individuals. The central government guards our interests by regulating interstate trade and the purity of our food and drugs. The federal government points the way into the future.

All of that was intended by the Constitution. The Constitution, and even the anti-federalists, wanted to keep the national government out of the affairs of the States and, even more so, out of the affairs of private individuals.

The poor (whatever that means) in the U.S. live better than kings in some remote corners of the earth. The super wealthy may have incomes of millions, but they still can only wear one pair of shoes at a time. Before the law both are as equal as humans can be. Those who lie down to a bed of roses must deal with thorns. There are vicious, mean, spiteful paupers, and millionaires. Both extremes also have their share of saintly individuals.

I am not saying, BTW, that much good has not come from involving the federal government in areas that were never intended by the Constitution. Anti-Trust legislation to breakup monopolies was a good thing. Regulation of the stock market has paid enormous benefits to us all. It took the power of the federal government to get rid of Jim Crow. There are uncounted millions who have benefited from SS and MediCare, but together they make up the largest single part of the National Debt, and federal revenues. Entitlement thinking and spending has to be brought in check ... and soon.

0 Replies

I think the point here is that not everyone who touts policies in the name of "progressive" reform and humanity, is truly interested in the general welfare: often this is done only to protect self-interest. Unions which campaign for tariff barriers to "protect the jobs" of unfortunate local citizens are, in fact, proposing to destroy the jobs of others in other exporting countries and, in addition, raise the cost of the goods their fellow countrymen consume. Liberals who argue for raising the minimum wage to a "living level" are in fact arguing to destroy opportunities for marginal employment for people and businesses who want it. Worse they tend to destroy many of the incentives for extra effort to produce more goods and services that benefit all. Unbridled capitalism has its own excesses, but more often than not (but not always) they are less injurious than the so called progressive alternatives.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And yet here in the 'evil greedy etc etc etc' U.S., we have almost no recognizable immigration policy, our borders seem to be wide open

Ever witnessed a regular Albanian or Kenyan try to get a Green Card, Fox? ;-)

Foxfyre wrote:

we take care of the illegal immigrants right along with the non-citizens who are here legally and the legitimate citizenry including free medical, schooling, jobs, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, etc. etc. etc. What is the policy in Germany and the Netherlands re people in your country illegally.

Has changed a lot lately. Until not so long ago, illegal residents could go to school, go to the doctor, even get their tax number or apply for unemployment benefits if they played it right - the different databases were not coupled, and it was not policy to doublecheck. (Ambiguity was the blessing implied in the famous Dutch system of "toleration" - where things formally are forbidden but acquired rights of what is tolerated anyway are taken into account). Eg, there were so-called "white illegals", which didn't refer to skin colour but to the fact that they had actually had a legal job, even paid taxes, often for years, even while they didnt actually posess a legal residence permit.

But yeah, a lot has changed. The white illegals have been either legalized or (the majority) deported - famous case was the Amsterdam shopkeeper Gumus, who was sent back to Turkey despite massive public protests (the public is fickle in such things). And for one, the different databases now all have been coupled - so no more tax numbers or benefit rights for illegal workers. And if the police apprehends you for something else but finds out you are illegal, they will actually try to deport you now. But school is still open I think - I mean, the children of illegals can still go to school - either that or it's "tolerated" - I remember there was a lot of ado a while ago about some rightwing government politician proposing that school directors should be obliged to inform the police if they know of illegals among their school kids, and how the schools and teachers stridently protested - I can't imagine that the politician actually got his way, though I'm not entirely sure and I wouldnt actually be surprised about anything anymore.

Interestingly, Pim Fortuyn wanted to legalize all illegals here, in exchange for then closing the border altogether. So on the one point he passed all the other parties on the right, but on the other on the left. Then again, in other European countries mass legalisation of illegal immigrants seems absolutely normal by now. Italy and Spain, who now receive the most of the new immigrants, have several times now done a mass legalisation procedure for everyone who'd already been there a few years.

Foxfyre wrote:

Is it possible to draw the line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what is not so far as social service go, and yet be considered compassionate?

Depends on where you draw the line, I would suppose ... ;-)

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I wasn't specifically addressing anyone in particular. The left, and much of the Democratic Party, typically hold one, or more of those three positions. What they amount to is that everyone should have virtually equal wealth.

Who was the last mainstream Democratic politician who held that "everyone should have virtually equal wealth", Asherman?

I'm serious about the straw man thing - unless you are applying a very generous definition of "virtually", indeed.

Taxes, especially for the rich, have been cut, and cut, and cut again these past years (and not just under Bush jr). Same here in Europe, btw. I can't think of a single mainstream leftwing politician who wants to put those taxes up even just to the level they used to be at a decade or three ago. The most I see Democrats (and here, social-democrats) argue is to put the taxes for the richest back up to somewhere along the line of where it was not all too long ago. How this translates to them wanting "everyone to have virtually equal wealth", I don't know, apart as some rhetorical device.

0 Replies

In spite of the rapid decline of the nation/state following WWII and parallel rise of international economics/multi-culturalism, both conservatives and liberals follow the fears of their respective populace and close their eyes to the demise of the value of protectionist policy. This is what I believe to be "reactionary" and self-defeating.

0 Replies

But what is a progressive tax code if not to equalize wealth?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Quote:
There needs to be some shame in drinking from the public trough, for those who don't need to, to discourage them from doing so.

I heartily disagree with this. It's not that hard to enforce regulations -- there is no reason not to have them and enforce them. Lots of hoops need to be jumped through before someone can get SSI or welfare.

I think it is far better to have the occasional scofflaw who loads groceries into his new car than to commit millions of needy people to the shame, degradation, and not least DANGER of the circumstances you describe.

One of my clients went through several homeless shelters -- she was raped and molested a few times, not the first time in her life, she dealt with it. But when her son was molested there, she lost it. I helped her do the labyrinthine paperwork to qualify for Section 8 housing and arranged for several temporary measures until her name came up on the waiting list. She had a horrific childhood, a terrible education, and yet was a positive, hard-working presence who benefited hugely from just one government-funded agency (that'd be me) focusing on her problems. There is no reason to purposely make her feel ashamed of her situation.

In addition to that, the scofflaws you are targeting wouldn't be impacted. They're already shameless.

Sozobe, to the extent that your friend's suffering is the State's fault for not providing a safe facility; shame on us all. However, not unlike Nimh's prediction, you didn't quite hear what I said... but rather what you expected me to say. In the sentence you quoted, you missed the words "for those who don't need to". Your friend, by the sounds of it, wouldn't have met my criteria for no-need, so she likely wouldn't have even been there in the first place.

I like Tommy Thompson's model insofar as it has steps. The first time someone asks for help (let's call this level one, for the purpose of this discussion), I would quite liberally be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Goals would need to be met, of course, like job applications or training and whatnot in order to maintain this level of support for the limited period of time it's available. Even at this level, however, I'd have a specific grocery list, consisting of a healthy, economically sound diet and cookbook if necessary. It turns my stomach watching people use their entitlement card to buy their kid's groceries consisting of mostly pop-tarts, cookies, potato chips etc. If I'm footing the bill, I say teach them how to shop/cook nutritionally and cost effectively in the process.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Level 10 where the true deadbeats of society show up at specific feeding times and are granted just enough space in a warm dry building. Level 10 would be about as comfortable as a prison. The only real difference is that the only thing necessary for parole is effort. To graduate to Level 9 simply sign up to work for the Welfare/Workfare system and they'll put to work using your skills, or labor if you have none.

I'd like to see the program growing much of it's own food like some of the more progressive prison systems do, to get the people acclimated to working for a living. At Level 9, they should start receiving a small amount of compensation for their efforts (not a living, mind you). Bonuses can be earned for volunteering to help more.

Okay, let's get back to Level 1; you only get one shot at this one. The more habitual your need becomes, the more levels you drop. People will naturally take pride in each accomplished Level promotion and will naturally look down on their peers that choose not to help themselves. This isn't the fault of the system it is human nature. The system is designed to exploit that nature, however. Don't doubt that shame can be a powerful motivator It is, after all, the antonym of pride.

Important note: I would not alter disability one iota. People who can demonstrate a genuine need for permanent public assistance would not be subject to the Level System.

The shame I speak of only applies to the leaches, Sozobe. No one begrudges the handicapped person for parking in the handicapped space. But it raises the hair on the back of my neck to see a healthy person park there. He is the fly in the ointment. I don't believe it is easy to enforce our current requirements and much like our penal system I think it relies too heavily on individual decision makers. Regulation that is far more rigid would eliminate the injustice of preferential treatment, while simultaneously eliminating some of the costly cumbersome bureaucratic BS that is responsible for our currents system's failures.

Now, that may sound like more government involvement but in practice, I don't think it would be. Rather than an ever increasing "welfare society", it would act as more of a "second chance" solution. Much like "Wisconsin Works" (Thompson's pilot program), the system is designed to force people to learn to take care of themselves. Before his program was instated, Milwaukee was becoming Gimme-Central where certain zip codes were averaging 11 dependents (cut off for welfare increases was 12 Idea

). Crime was through the roof and per capita earnings were sinking well below the national averages. Now I'll grant you it's not Disney Land now, but it's a damn site better than it was; most of those trends have reversed and many who had migrated for the Welfare Bennies went back to where they came from when asked to help themselves.

The biggest difference I see is that conservatives tend to recognize the inseparable connection between words like ?'shame and pride' and ?'reward and punish' where liberals tend to want one without the other. If there is no shame in not earning your keep, where does the pride from doing so come from? Conversely; if you're proud of not producing, shouldn't you be ashamed? If you don't reward someone for working, that is punishment, correct? Then isn't it also true that if you don't punish for not working; it's a reward? IMO, conservative people tend to accept these connections dispassionately while the liberal thinkers try too hard to excuse the negative side of the individual's own culpability.

0 Replies

Nimh writes:

Quote:

Ever witnessed a regular Albanian or Kenyan try to get a Green Card, Fox?

Well I have Kenyan neighbors with green cards and they had no trouble getting them. I don't know if I know any Albanians or not, but I doubt they would have any trouble either. A green card is not difficult to acquire in the US, especially if you have been offered a job.

In response to Dys's and others' comments, here are two short but excellent essays zeroing in on the whole issue of haves and have nots both on the domestic and international fronts:

"Poverty in America" (domestic) - Walter Williams
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams021903.asp

"Self-inflicted poverty" (international) - Walter Williams
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams063004.asp

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Blatham, Understandable persective and accurate in many elements. However those in the Bush administration who advocate the various issues you identified are no more "ideoligical" than are those who oppose them, and who have for several decades have successfully chipped away at the former dominant themes of the American Social contract. The objectives are different, but the determination, organization and tactics are all quite similar. Action and reaction. Nothing particularly remarkable here.

george

This is a formula you have brought to our discussions since they began...

One side always equals the other side, the present is exactly like the past, no policy or statement or political philosophy is worthy of notice as its converse must necessarily exist in balance.

It is a species of relativism, and as in the case of moral relativism, it has the failing of blocking discernment, of making real differences invisible, by axiom.

There are ways to think about this stuff, to get some traction and weigh actual differences. If you consider periods or places where ideological purity is unusually valued or insisted upon, concomitant factors will be in place, predictably, visibly.

Multiplicity of viewpoint will be considered a negative. Dissent will be seen as dangerous or treasonous. Positions of power will be reserved for those of proven loyalty. Institutions designed to disperse, or balance against, the locus of power will fall under attack. Communications will be tightly controlled to maintain a desired narrative. Individuals within the structure of power will be protected and easily forgiven. Laws and codes will be held valid or invalid based upon whether they serve as impediment or facilitor to the wishes of those holding power. And the exclusionary nature of each of these tendencies will function to foment an absolutely predictable 'us' and 'them' frame of reference.

I am depressed. Your nation has arrived at a bad place. And in great part, that is because peoples' commitment to actual self-governance is so shallow. There is far more of the North Korea in you than your dreams and mythologies can allow perception of.

Blatham,
It is true: this is an issue over which we have not understood each other.

What you are terming as ?'relativism' is something quite different in my eyes. You claimed that I, in effect, excuse what you call the excess ideological zeal of certain conservatives or Bush supporters, by saying, as you put it, "others do it too'. You claim this is an evasion of your criticism and their alleged defects. I, on the other hand, aware of the equivalent - and often greater - ideological zeal of the various single-issue groups who make up the core of the Democrat party, note that your accusation of ideology is simply not a meaningful distinction between the two groups - it is instead an attribute they share in common. It is positively deceptive in such a situation for you to term one group as excessively ideological, and omit the other. You are, in effect making a distinction in the absence of a difference.

The only difference between the two groups is the identity of the issues about which their ideologies are centered. I suspect that , and the religious motives you see behind some Republicans, causes you to regard such ideology and zeal as intrinsically illegitimate, precisely because of the assumed religious motivation behind the policies they advocate. On the other hand, I regard the motivation of both parties in these disputes as completely irrelevant and in fact unknowable, Competing ideas and proposals for public policy should be evaluated on their own merits, irrespective of the preoccupations of those who advocate them. Why? Because if enacted they will affect everyone, those with motives you like and those you dislike. In the end it is only the policy itself that matters.

0 Replies

Amen George. As long as the debate focuses on whose values, we shall remained polarized and unable to find win win middle grounds. Once we can focus on what values and ignore who holds them, I suspect we shall find more on which to agree than we will to disagree.

0 Replies

Quote:

What you are terming as ?'relativism' is something quite different in my eyes. You claimed that I, in effect, excuse what you call the excess ideological zeal of certain conservatives or Bush supporters, by saying, as you put it, "others do it too'. You claim this is an evasion of your criticism and their alleged defects. I, on the other hand, aware of the equivalent - and often greater - ideological zeal of the various single-issue groups who make up the core of the Democrat party, note that your accusation of ideology is simply not a meaningful distinction between the two groups - it is instead an attribute they share in common. It is positively deceptive in such a situation for you to term one group as excessively ideological, and omit the other. You are, in effect making a distinction in the absence of a difference.

Thus it is always impossible or logically inappropriate to suggest that any political circumstance might evidence ideology which is problematical?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Amen George. As long as the debate focuses on whose values, we shall remained polarized and unable to find win win middle grounds. Once we can focus on what values and ignore who holds them, I suspect we shall find more on which to agree than we will to disagree.

The issue is not values, it is policies. Anyone can hold whatever values they might favor. Instituting them as policies for the entire community is another matter.

The 'what' IS the thing, but that 'what' is held by a 'who'. The KKK is a who. The ACLU is a who. Scientologists are a who.

The KKK holds certain values regarding race and religion. Pathological, but who cares. Unless he/she runs for office with the implicit or explicit goal of instituting those values into community policy.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know