About Me

Name: The Proud Liberal
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Equality, fairness, justice not in conservative vocabulary

The American people are sovereign, not the Constitution. And we can choose to create a society in which the values of equality, fairness and justice are part of our main values. With the liberty that God gave us, we can choose.
 
The reason that we have a well regulated market economy is that we the people choose to regulate the market to conform to our choice of values of equality, fairness and justice.
 
This is why we are a Welfare State.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative confusion about "no free lunch"

Thirty years ago conservatives were the leaders in proclaiming that an unbalanced federal budget was a crime and a sin, since it saddled our children and grandchildren with a debt they had nothing to do with accumulating. An unbalanced budget, they said, is a tax on our unborn children.
 
During the same era they would loudly proclaim that "there is no free lunch," meaning that if you got something, especially from government, it had to be paid for somewhere along the way and in ways that might not be clear at the time the something was given.
 
And, at the same time, conservatives proclaimed that taxes stiffled the American economy, that you got less of whatever you taxed, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and Americans didn't gain by taxing corporations, they ended up paying the taxes themselves.
 
And, at the same time, they proclaimed that "liberals are in favor of taxing and spending."
 
Over the years two problems have emerged with all this rhetoric. The first is that studies show that tax cuts only help grow our economy on the very margin, that growth is really promoted by long term effects of new technology. The second is that studies show that tax cuts do not readily pay for themselves, that it takes a very long time to make up the lost taxes.
 
Thirdly, conservatives typically duck and evade the contradiction between "taxing and spending" and "no free lunch."
To get something you must pay for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are Women's Souls Feminine?

Dennis Prager spends a lot of time talking about the difference between men and women. And given that there is wide variability of traits among all people, both men and women, there is certainly a centralizing tendency for women to be more feminine than men.
 
But are women's souls feminine - and men's souls masculine? Following Thomas Jefferson's observation that "All men are created equal," there has been a couple centuries worth of debate on "In what way are (people) equal?"
 
If women's souls are feminine does this mean that they are unequal? Are women unfit to be president of the United States because their souls are unequal to men's? And what about our perceptions and theories about human souls? Does our theory say that souls vary in their characteristics the way the incarnated human being does?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Confusion on "Equal Opportunity"

Conservatives are quick to point out that individuals are born with variable talents and that the distribution of variable talents within society lead to variable consequences. The fact is on most things there is a range from lowest to highest, i.e., athletic ability, mathematical ability, honesty, integrity, etc. It's logical that consequences should not be equal.
 
Conservatives, however, usually draw very narrow conclusions about the variability of talents and traits and personality and temperaments within society and the human race. Usually, conservatives constrain this correct observation to the disposition of wealth. They point out, again correctly, that those individuals who have the most of a particular talent will be the most successful in that area and, in many cases, success will be accompanied by money. The good society, conservatives say, will provide everyone with an equal opportunity to compete against one another, enabling those with the most talent to achieve their just deserts.
 
At the same time conservatives fail to recognize and respect human variability in the area of sexual traits. Some people are highly sexed. Some are not. Some people are very masculine or very feminine, some are not. Conservatives fail to grant equal opportunity in the expression of sex. Conservatives retreat to a belief that there must be a standardized, not variable, sexual distribution.
 
This is a confusion and a contradiction in conservative philosophy which conservatives do not recognize about themselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Contradictions of "Personal Responsibility"

To evoke the doctrine of personal responsibility is to declare a theory of cause and effect, to wit: "Exercising personal responsibility will cause you to be successful." As I acknowledged to Ex-Wyomingite, exercising personal responsibility can certainly cause some good things to happen to you as an individual. The question is, however, what percentage of what happens to you, i.e., the consequences in your life, are caused by exercising personal responsibility.
 
Because, to begin with, it's clear that we are not the cause of many things about us or that happen to us. For instance: we do not choose the country we are born in, nor the parents to whom we are born, nor do we choose our parents' social and economic status; we do not choose our sex; we do not choose our innate mathematical ability, we do not choose our innate musical ability; we do not choose our innate athletic ability. We don't choose our good looks, nor our height, nor our body type. We don't choose to be extroverted or introverted. We don't choose our race. We don't choose our intelligence and we may not choose our emotional maturity either.
 
Our society puts conditions on our opportunities. We accumulate grade point averages and take tests that are evaluated by colleges. We apply to colleges but the colleges we apply to can turn us down or accept us, depending on their evaluation. We take tests to get into graduate school as well, and are in competition with others to be chosen. Graduate schools turn down students every year and the students can't do what they would choose.
 
Competition and training influence the course of our lives. Tennis players, dancers, chess players, ice skaters, musicians, every ambition can be enhanced by starting as young as possible in training for the future. If you don't start early your competition may be way ahead of you by the time you reach your teen-age years. There will be junior leagues for tennis players and golfers, from which the adult stars of tomorrow will come.
 
The ambitious person will usually want to join in the societal stream of concentrations already in existence. If you want to be an actor you will probably find it necessary to go to New York or Hollywood; you will need to go to a big city to work for major corporations.
 
These are all things that personal responsibility doesn't have much effect on, i.e., the things that causes consequences in our lives are external to whatever personal responsibility we exercise. Personal responsibility may be less than a 10% cause in our lives.
 
The ultimate contradiction for conservatives is that conservatives are very high on competition and for situations in which people compete against each other and only the best are the top winners. A lot of people who have exercised great personal responsibility in their lives will be losers because they are simply not as good as the winners, i.e., an individual can't do whatever they want in this life if only they exercise responsibility, etc.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism Disproves Free Market Theory

Free market theory says that all participants will make rational, i.e., not emotional, decisions that will maximize their individual best interests. Therefore, free market theory says that liberals make rational decisions.
 
On the other hand conservatives consistently allege that liberals make emotional, i.e. non-rational, decisions. If conservatives are correct then free market theory is invalid.
 
Although it is tempting to have it both ways it is logically impossible. Either free market theory is correct and liberals make rational decisions or conservatives are right and liberals make emotional decisions. But both cannot be right.
 
A liberal's choice of government entitlements such as social security and medicare are legitimate choices. The free market cannot proscribe individuals from making rational choices to choose something other than the free market.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America Deserves Fight Over Clintons

"Exactly why the American right hates the Clintons so fervidly remains a subject of debate among both political scientists and psychiatrists, but the persistence of those emotions is beyond dispute." From Joe Conason this morning in Salon.

I believe that the American electorate once again needs to immerse itself in that hatred during the 2008 presidential contest, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee. My hope is that it would serve as a great big emetic for America.

Hillary misstated when she cited "a vast right wing conspiracy." But I have no doubt that there existed before and during the Clinton presidency a "shared understanding" among conservative activists, driven by the anti-abortion conservative activists, but consisting of an opportunistic coalition including fiscal conservatives.

Perhaps the building conservative movement since Reagan simply reached a critical mass at this time. Many people for many years had been working tirelessly to destroy the American Welfare State: Vigerie, the tax guy, forget his name, Heritage Foundation, AEI, all felt that government was the enemy of freedom and now comes along the passion and burgeoning organization of the religious right and its obsession with abortion as "mass murder."

Perhaps they just all achieved this critical mass as Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency. But it is clear that there was a "shared understanding" that the right would do everything in its power to undermine and sabotage the Clinton presidency as a means to further their own ideological ambitions.

Part Two:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Would Jesus have loved secularists?

Of course. But Romney doesn't. Come to think of it, neither do Town Hallists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney supports religious test for presidency

He says you have to have one. Doesn't care what it is. Though I notice he didn't mention the Hari Krishnas or the religion in Florida that sacrifices dogs. No doubt he gives himself the right to label any religion he doesn't like a "cult," while deploring anyone who calls Mormonism a cult. But if you're an athiest in this country you don't have a president if Romney is elected.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney won't be president of all Americans

Just like Bush!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Insurance Company Worse Than Welfare State

Be thankful we have a Welfare State in charge of most everything rather than Insurance Companies. They're demanding the very secrets of my soul for me to do a 1035 exchange. I'd rather deal with the government any day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (32) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's hold the debate, NOW

Let's hold the debate in Congress about whether "America is or should be a Christian Nation (perhaps that should be a Conservative Christian nation." Let's get it out of the self-referential closet here on TH and get it out into the open for public scrutiny. And let's be sure to get Joe Lieberman involved as well as that Jewish Israel lobby. And let's have a roll-call vote so we can see where each of our senators and congressmen stand.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We aren't A Nation Of Laws

Certainly not in the way that conservatives endlessly repeat this homily. Laws are made by men. We make some good laws and we make some bad laws. But always laws are made in a political context and the people with the gold - you remember the Golden Rule, "those with the gold, rule" - those with the gold pour money into the political process to get laws passed which are in their interest.

Conservatives use the homily "we are a nation of laws" as if our laws are transcendentally derived from God. Not so. They're derived from a usually corrupt political process.

 

I offer this in the spirit of "speaking truth to conservatives."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Remember the Socialist S&L Bailout?

Are my tax dollars still being redistributed to the capitalists who made poor decisions in the S&L industry? I've lost track. Socialism for the capitalists and the free market for the rest of us? Give me a break.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did Blacks Get Irresponsible Over Night?

Let's dispense immediately with the idea that black Africans were responsible for being taken into slavery because of their poor values. I don't think slavers would take the time to sort potential slaves based on their values.

And let's fast forward a bit. It seems reasonable to assume that blacks were not personally responsible for the slave system in the United States, nor for Jim Crow and the discrimination in the U.S. right up on through the 1960s, when there were laws passed in education, voting and civil rights.

The two questions are: when did blacks become responsible for their poverty because of their poor values, typically unmarried teen age girls having babies; and did that happen overnight? Dennis Prager inexhaustively identifies black poverty with those particular values, or lack thereof.

What one must do with any conservative assertion is to ask: What is your base year? The usual conservative attitude is that at some point, let's say 1998 during the Clinton presidency,

 obstacles to blacks disappeared and any black had as much opportunity as any white to be successful. Thus, black poverty was not the result, in that base year and continuing through to day, of social structure barriers but could be confidently attributed to the culture of values possessed by poor blacks.

 

Other questions are tempting, such as: were blacks always personally irresponsible but was this overshadowed by social barriers and when the barriers were lifted the personal irresponsibility remained and became visible for all to see?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »