Progressives (Liberals)

It's a matter of degree. After Reagan crushed Mondale the Democrats were lost in the woods. They began to suspect that the old FDR coalition was in trouble, mostly because they couldn't raise the funds required to pull off successful campaigns. The defection of the "Reagan Democrats" was a wake-up call. So they made peace with the more progressive aspects of Wall Street (there have always been liberal bankers who believe in the "rising tide floats all boats" model of prosperity) and adopted aspects of neo-liberalism. The Dems saw it as necessary to move from being seen strictly as a party for the poor — the same way the GOP worked to court evangelicals and to turn the working class against students, minorities, and immigrants, not wanting to be seen exclusively as the party of the wealthy. Clinton brought electoral success, but the party made a big mistake by continuing the promotion of neo-liberal policies as the economic and political situation changed after the country embarked on the ill-conceived "War on Terrorism".

Ben Carson announces that Trump is going to be recommending a national day of prayer.

"You know" Carson said, "We've gotten away from prayer a lot in this country. There's nothing wrong with Godly principles no matter what your faith is. Loving your neighbor. Caring about the people around you. Developing your God given talents to the utmost so that you are valuable to the people around you" and I couldn't listen to this any more.

I believe you may be conflating cause and effect and seriously prejudging the intentions of the various actors in the political dramas you are addressing in your two posts above.

Many (not all) conservatives resist government-managed programs designed for a presumed social good, simply because they dread the permanent expansion of government rule in areas from which it isn't likely ever to retreat; and the loss of individual freedom and individual responsibility that often results from them. (there are many examples out there indicating the creation of lasting, and enervating, dependencies on the part of the populations targeted for the "benefit" of such programs. Indeed from single parent welfare programs to student loan subsidies, unintended side effects appear in the long term to overwhelm the intended benefits for which they were designed. It isn't only the greed and the fear of political opposition Which you identified as their main motivators) that actually motivates many conservatives on these issues..

Similarly the benevolence of often wealthy progressives isn't all simply an expression of personal concern for others (there are numerous ways in which individual people, and civic organizations of them, can address problems of poverty and inadequate education). For prosperous Liberals among us, the act of supporting government taxation and welfare programs isn't all charity and brotherly love. A good deal of it appears to involve a desire to placate unfortunates simply to keep them out of their own neighborhoods (which are protected by exceedingly high property values and community associations from the intrusion of the unwashed beneficiaries of the programs they advocate.. In the SF Bay area, Marin county, to the north, and the foothills of the peninsula around San Mateo to the South, are fiercely Liberal in their voting and policy preferences, but can readily be seen as utterly devoid of "people of color" (in the current vernacular.) when one walks or drives through their well-tended streets and enclaves.

I'm not suggesting that the motives you cite are completely absent or in error. Rather that the situation on the part of both political partisans and the so called "beneficiaries" of government programs - and indeed the effectiveness of such programs in achieving their intended aims - is a good deal more complex than you acknowledge.

I suspect they merely took his temperature.

Feeling a bit like E. A. Robinson's Miniver Cheevy??

That's possible. Still, though Trump said two nights ago that all arrivals from Europe were being tested at airports, that was a lie. They weren't even having their temperatures taken.

On March 6, the US had tested, in total, some 3500 citizens. On the same day, here in BC alone, over 2000 had been tested.

So, what information is important here, george?

so what is it when trump denies he is responsible?

A consistent strategy he has always used and admits to using - Never admit to being wrong. It is a strategy which is utterly common in bullies and those who need to dominate others. It's a correlate of his character he brags about, "Give them the old Trump bullshit", in his own words. It's "leadership" as understood by dictators and Mafia types. It's a manifestation of his psychopathy.

I agree with you here; I've said it about many government programs — there should be more of an effort to assess their effectiveness over time and improve, repair, replace them as necessary. The thing about the welfare programs — I'm as critical of the deleterious effects as you are — is that on the whole I believe they do more good than harm, in humanitarian terms. There are too many people in need, it's as simple as that. To really make "welfare" into a constructive institution on a comprehensive mission to improve the life, health, and prospects of the poor would require a very substantial investment. But just doubling the number of licensed social workers would take years. Without a real commitment I don't see the situation improving any time soon. I'll have to live with it.


(edit) I want to rephrase one of my points in my first post above —

"The GOP fears any government program which directly helps people because once people become dependent on government aid and believe that the government is responsive to their needs they're more likely to vote for the Democrats, who'll likely (gasp) impose regulations on business and tax the wealthy."

Permit me to gasp along with you.

That is merely a slightly deceptive way of saying they (the "beneficiaries") have become dependent on the government program, and are no longer willing or able to fend for themselves. That's hardly a beneficial result.

In any event why would any thinking person want to allow others (progressives) to misuse public monies, and tax dollars collected from them, to buy the enduring political loyalty of unfortunate people who are harmed and rendered servile and dependent by the very "benefits" used to capture their loyalty ?? This is hardly an act in the public interest - no matter how hard you try to sugar coat it.

A very astute, wise, and insightful post, as usual, George.

Keep preachin, commie-girl. Now that you're the face of the Democrat party, be sure to get your message spread far and wide. Sure, it's a losing message, but, still...



"Low income college students" is kinda redundant, aint it? Why not just say "all college students?"

There are many college students who are in the wealthier bracket.

Many, eh? Is that because they have "high incomes" or simply because they have, by inheritance or otherwise, accumulated wealth before they became students? You can be "wealthy" and yet still have a "low income" at the same time. I could have a million dollars in the bank, and yet still have (interest) income of less than $10,000 a year at today's prevailing rates. Well below the "poverty line."

You'll need to go from town to town and find out.

Since you're the one supplying the "information," why don't YOU do that, and get back to us with your findings, eh?

I wouldn't bet on it being a losing message if I were you. The country's anger is palpable with the trump administration calling it a hoax and farting around for three crucial weeks.

Burnie Sanders doesn't apologize for being a multi-millionaire. On the contrary, he says he entitled to it because he "earned" it. Kinda like his wife "earned" it by ripping off the college she was president of and caused to go bankrupt and close, I suppose.

But that aint the point. Point is that, for a good commie, no one is entitled to the fruits of their own labor. It all belongs to the collective, not the individual.

Maybe AOC can do better, eh? Oh, wait, I forgot. She's the one who put her boyfriend on the campaign payroll and transferred millions more into a "slush fund" controlled by her campaign manager. She no longer lives in the district she represents because she found more "upscale" communities and lodgings elsewhere.

Well, that's OK. Surely there's a good commie out there somewhere.