from Shining Path to Middle Path...
An interesting enough topic that I thought it was worth posting a reply as a blog entry:
For many if not most americans, this would still be a great deal; despite the wide prevalence of the American Dream, few americans will ever become filthy rich, or even just really rich, if they weren't born into it, and almost 20% of Americans have no access to healthcare aside from emergency room visits. That being said, I'm not convinced such a society is possible in the US because of its existing economy, sheer size, and relatively weak federal government (for all the bitching and moaning we do about how we hate Big Government, the US federal government has relatively few powers compared to other democracies.)
#2--the truth invariably lies between two disparate points of view. If the young socialist eventually moves right on the political spectrum, it is because the truth of the matter is in the center--not the far right. What's troubling is that it is only rarely that conservatives, and Republicans in particular, are willing to move towards the oft-vilified left.
As much as he is demonized by the right, Clinton was able to accomplish more, and to the benefit of a much larger and diverse group of constituents, than the Bush administration ever dreamed of, chiefly because he governed from the center and did not allow his presidency to become a slave to ideology.
Pen: "Ha...that just means conservatives figure it out a whole lot quicker. Keep chasing that utopian dream buddy. Let me know when you get hit with the reality train."#1, I haven't been a socialist for years. I do, however, think that socialist democracies that incorporate enough of a capitalist bent will tend to have an overall higher rate of "citizen satisfaction", a totally made up word that you can think of as the number of people who don't hate life and don't have to worry about their basic needs. I think that comes at a cost that most americans aren't willing to pay, even if the cost is only theoretical to them. for example, in the hypothetical, well-organized social democracy, there are going to be very few people, if any, who are just dirt-poor. You'll be able to meet your basic needs, have access to healthcare and education. The cost is that nobody's ever going to be filthy rich either, the healthcare will probably be rationed, and in general will not be as advanced as possible, and you probably won't get to pick which school you go to. There will be some inefficiency in the economy of course, though far less than what we are taught from the earliest time we are able to recognize "Commie" as an epithet. [note: For the sake of clarity, Communism is one form of a socialist economy, but hardly the sole implementation. The two terms are absolutely not synonymous, despite widespread belief to the contrary. There have been socialist governments on both the right and left end of the political spectrum.]
For many if not most americans, this would still be a great deal; despite the wide prevalence of the American Dream, few americans will ever become filthy rich, or even just really rich, if they weren't born into it, and almost 20% of Americans have no access to healthcare aside from emergency room visits. That being said, I'm not convinced such a society is possible in the US because of its existing economy, sheer size, and relatively weak federal government (for all the bitching and moaning we do about how we hate Big Government, the US federal government has relatively few powers compared to other democracies.)
#2--the truth invariably lies between two disparate points of view. If the young socialist eventually moves right on the political spectrum, it is because the truth of the matter is in the center--not the far right. What's troubling is that it is only rarely that conservatives, and Republicans in particular, are willing to move towards the oft-vilified left.
As much as he is demonized by the right, Clinton was able to accomplish more, and to the benefit of a much larger and diverse group of constituents, than the Bush administration ever dreamed of, chiefly because he governed from the center and did not allow his presidency to become a slave to ideology.
posted by karmajunkie @ 3/01/2006 02:17:00 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
"Clinton was able to accomplish more, and to the benefit of a much larger and diverse group of constituents, than the Bush administration ever dreamed of, chiefly because he governed from the center and did not allow his presidency to become a slave to ideology"
This is where we differ, Gaddis...on ideology. By your comments, you see the government's job as having to "do" for people. I on the other hand want the government to leave me the hell alone, and have as little involvement in my life as possible. I think that the "less" a president does for his so-called "constituency" the better the president! And by constituency, the only constituency Clinton ever helped were the people who voted for him. A president's "constituency" should be every citizen of the USA. Okay, I am done ranting, but this is one of those issues where I have core ideological and philosophical differences on just what a government is supposed to be. There is probably no use arguing it, but I am sure we will fire a few more volleys back and forth.
One more thing: using Bush as the model versus Clinton is not going to fly with me. Maybe two years ago, but not now. I see plenty of flaws. You want to compare Clinton to somebody, compare him to Reagan. I guess you wouldn't win that one though, huh?
As for the comment that started it all, i was just being sarcastic.
In principle, I agree with you on the role of government, with one modification: it should be as small as practical, not possible.
By practical, I mean that there are some things I believe the government has to do, in order for us to have a functional democracy. Take our conversation on education the other night, for example. And frankly, there's a lot of things a free market economy does quite poorly in practice--for example, in the absence of environmental regulations, do you really trust DuPont to clean up after themselves? I know a lot of people in Anniston that certainly don't. (incidentally, the lab that did all the testing in that lawsuit is in Hattiesburg, founded by QG #2, and is currently run by his son, QG #376. Just some Snake trivia for you...)
Libertarian principles are great in theory. I, like you, want government to leave me alone as much as possible. But the practical side of the matter is that we live in a society where that isn't always the case, nor is it ever going to be, and sometimes there are good reasons for that. We don't live in a country that is psychologically OK with letting people starve, with allowing the elderly to go without medical treatment or any sort of income. Personally, I can live with that, within reason.
If you accept the premise that these things are good, that we should have some sort of safety net in place to ensure that the kind of poverty that wracks the third world doesn't exist right under our noses, then the question becomes, can these goals be more efficiently achieved by the private sector, without government? My answer is a resounding, emphatic, probably not. The private sector is great at finding routes to efficiency, when there's profit to be had--in this case, I don't really see an avenue to profit. That being said, if the private sector and charities could do the job so much better than government, then I say let them step up and do it. Its not like the two approaches are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that the reason government started taking over those roles in the first place was because they weren't being handled at all by the organizations who traditionally did so.
Conservatives love to pretend that there is no benefit to social programs, but that's just not the case. Have you ever asked yourself why the Great Depression hasn't happened again? The 90's were certainly a ripe time for it. The answer is at least in part because government programs were able to prevent an economic stumble from turning into a Roadrunner-style walk off a high cliff carrying an anvil.
We should never be psychologically okay with letting people starve. But it is not the government's job. The government could do a lot of things that it has no business getting into. Private organizations such as churches, charities, humanitarian orgs can do this just fine. They did it before welfare, and they would do it after. I have said it before: there are costs to being poor. I am not saying that to be a dick, I am saying that because it is a fact.
You say that the reason that government stepped up is because they weren't taking care of it. The government stepped in because FDR was a hell of a salesman, and nobody had any money. I know how to establish a monarchy...I will throw money at the poor people! Democrats (and now Republicans) have been doing it for SIXTY years! The simple fact is that back then, nobody had any money. Not private organizations, not citizens in general. New Deal and Great Society should have been temporary programs to phase back in the private sector. Nobody said it has to be for profit either. NON-PROFIT organizations. As long as people's hearts bleed, they will be there. And you and I both will contribute to them. I will give money to the church. The church will provide soup kitchens, etc.
Clinton single-handedly stopped another depression? If anything, i have the better argument for that. Welfare was reformed, etc during that time. Economies go in cycles, just like everything else. that was a downtime but it turned itself around. Government should do minimal things: defense, infrastructure, environmental control (for Anniston)...we know they won't regulate themselves. I am telling you, you don't give the free market enough credit. It corrects itself...it may not be on your timeline, but it will.
I am done with the other stuff, so i will digress a little on regulation. Think about price-gouging. Why do we say don't do it? Because it makes us feel all fuzzy inside and because it is what is "fair." Well, if let the market control, the people that run to the hurricane with the lumber can charge a high price. And the people that can pay will buy it. The demand is high so more people go with lumber down there. Then when the market is sufficiently saturated, the price will fall. Then, everyone can buy lumber...it is a glorious thing. So, yes, poor people may get the last lumber. Does that suck for them? YES. But that is reality. All this talk about fairness and all that is a bunch of hogwash that helps us sleep better at night, and I don't buy it. Like I said before though...you have the idea that the government should "do" for people, and I don't. This is true despite what you say earlier about trying to line up with "minimal" government. You should say that you want the government to be as small as practical while at the same time making sure nobody suffers, and if that takes "Legal Plunder" then so be it. I just disagree.
I couldn't figure out how to hyperlink in the comments, so here is "Legal Plunder" - http://lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/law09.htm
And that is not to say you are socialist. But "socially liberal" meaning that you redistribute (although in a limited fashion). Don't argue with me on this...you may disagree with the terminology, but that is what it is. You call a spade a spade when you see me saying things...I am just returning the favor.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home