Political science has always fascinated me going back to my days at TCU where I got my undergraduate degree. When you meld in the little bit of psychology I got in my masters you really get some interesting things. Right now, the nation is focused on health care, but when you combine those two subjects (politics and psychology) you get a blueprint on just about every issue. Our two party system is fairly unique and stable which means Democrat and Republican is more symbolic and less descriptive than parties in other countries. Even the terms liberal and conservative mean something completely different in Europe and Asia.
When I was younger, it seemed very hard to believe that political parties would completely change places in my lifetime, but now it isn't so hard to believe. We see shifts all the time and the opposing party usually adopts the opposing viewpoint out of necessity. The perfect example is the evolution of the Republican party from the party of progressives under Theodore Roosevelt into the party for big business today. Meanwhile, the Democrats have taken the opposite progression. Therefore, it is more important that we understand what we are fighting for rather than what we are fighting against.
Yesterday, I mentioned corporations and that gets to the heart of the debate. Kelly also had an excellent blog about discrimination and racism. That's also important. The question of where you stand politically comes down to a couple of core questions. First, who do you trust to move America in the right direction? No, this does not mean a particular candidate, but whether you believe government should have a role in providing for the general welfare of its citizens or whether you think the free market of ideas, products, and services should reign, If you've watched the conservative movement over the past three decades you will notice a systematic effort to break down regulation, shrink or eliminate government programs, and outsource government services to private businesses and corporations.
The reason for this is simple. Ronald Reagan uttered it during his first inaugural address. He said, "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." In other words, not only is government inefficient, but those private businesses will be more intelligent and more motivated to do well because of profit motive. Here is where liberals have the problem. Profit motivation may make you efficient, but it will also make you turn a blind eye to the plight of humanity if it means making an extra buck. So, we go back to our original question: who do you trust more, corporations or government?
While this question does a good job of framing who should be taking care of the basic services we all agree should done (national defense, education, disaster relief, ect) it does not answer the other great question: what is the job of government. Civil libertarians think the job of government is to protect us and that is it. On the other end of the spectrum, we have those that want government to provide our retirement, health care, unemployment benefits, education (college and regular), or anything else I left out. Naturally, most people are in between.
At this point, you are wondering what the point is of all of this. First, we have to know where we stand on those two basic questions. Secondly, we have to remain true to those beliefs that we have. That might mean abandoning one party or the other if they abandon those particular beliefs. That's why so many Republicans are bailing. They see their party moving away from their own core beliefs. We have to hold our Democrats to the fire if they start to waver on those basic beliefs. I tend to trust government more than I trust big business. I know big business is in it for themselves. I know government is in it for us. Yes, there are good businesses out there and yes there are some inefficiencies in government. However, we have seen what has happened when you turn over the reigns to big business. Let's keep that from happening again.
Hee! Getting ready for a marathon without having any access to showers would sure require some body odor bonding.
As long as I can be paid for those few weeks I'm all for a DC run. The mall is a fun place to hang out and we can bound over campfires, body odor, and the occasional Smithsonian run.
Even more so, it's time to institute CANADIAN-STYLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! Now. Please.
We're going to have to round up several tens of millions of us and all march on D.C. and camp out there for a few weeks, though, to make it happen.
of course, the irony is that if business is buying off our politicins....it doesn't really matter who's in charge.
I think it's time to make bribery and corruption a capital offense...
Why is Obama pandering to Snowe?
Why does one Republican get to kill us with their 'pay or die' health insurance scam?
This is a complex issue and I began by speaking in generalities. Unfortunately, an issue like this can't be dealt with across the board and I regret giving that impression. To put it as simply as possible, there are some goods and services that we might label "public goods." The conservative answer is that all goods shall be distributed on the open market. My belief is that those things that a majority (sizeable) can agree are public goods should be either distributed by the public (ie government) or distributed privately with profit motive removed from the equation.
Profit motive is fine and I have no problem with it when I have a choice as a consumer. For instance, I don't mind Wal-Mart's profits because I can go to Target or the grocery store. I choose not the shop at Wal-Mart unless I absolutely have to. It doesn't affect my well-being whatsoever. On the other hand, I cannot go without health care insurance, electricity, running water, police, fire fighting, ect. These things should not fall under profit motivation because there is no viable alternative for me the consumer. The term I heard on the radio to describe this is "unlimited demand." If my daughter gets sick (God forbid) then I will spend every last dime to get her well and most parents fall under that category.
Since most Americans fall in the middle then most Americans have an honest debate about what constitutes a public good and what doesn't. I'm fine having that debate. Yet, if we agree that something is a public good then profit should not be part of that equation.
whether it's a corporation or a gov't entity it all comes down to the initiative. the initiative is based upon agenda, and the agenda is implemented according to principle. a non profit corporation seems a fair compromise between govt and business, for example grant projects funded with public money and administered in a business model. accountability and regulation are essential for success, although for profit business and thus the politicians they influence with money and power always resist regulation. so we get the enron, madoff, toxic assets of wall street and food recalls. we also have an out of control insurance industry who currently decide who can live or die, complete with publicity henchmen brainwashing sheeple that reform will result in the end of the world. if businesses operated as good stewards of the people it would not only be sensible but preferable to have less govt bureauracy and more business. but the govt has an obligation to protect public interest and give voice to those unable to afford a politician. PAC or lobby. also there is separation of church & state, a major concern for founders yet seemingly forgotten by the right wing who insist everyone, everything and every corner of the globe be branded "christian". i believe in secular govt & business but find my preference increasingly unpopular.
I trust corporations to do whatever is in their best interest, regardless of the human consequences. Greed is their motivating factor, and it motivates to destroy.
Yes, Republicans are bailing, but the GOP is growing stronger as a result of its fanaticism, persistent lies and appeals to resentment and anger.
We've seem this in just the last couple of days as the right wing ramps up the noise level about the president's plan to actually speak to schoolchildren about such things as achievement, the need to acquire a good education and the responsibilities of citizenship. Of course, these are all messages children should hear, but instead that is being drowned out by the outrage of conservatives who are worried about indoctrination or promotion of socialism. And this outrage is being driven by right wing talk radio, purely to invent an issue that will generate opposition to all things Obama.
There are differences between a Democrat and a Republican. And apparently one of the major differences now emerging is an interest in actually governing, based on a commitment to logic and facts. That makes me proud to be a Democrat, but I fear we are losing the fight right now to the loudmouths and the fanatics and those who don't bother to educate themselves on the issues.
when you get down to the place where the ursine mammal evacuates it's bowels in the sylvan area.....you CAN'T have entities whose only true motivation is profit entrusted with the regulation of their own actions. That's what i mean by balance. I don't trust the government any more than i trust big business, as i think they BOTH must be closely watched....and there HAS to be accountability.
i'm with you there Scott
Obviously there is middle ground. My main point is that liberal and conservative depends on how you answer the question of whether you trust government or big business more. I would not paint a broad brush that all big business is bad, but I do think that most would cut corners if there were no government regulation. There were just too many Enrons, Worldcoms, and Food Lions to make me believe otherwise.
I have no desire to rid the world of corporations, but I do think we need to look at what services (like health care) would be better served from government rather than big business. I don't want the government selling burgers, cars, and burritos, but I don't want health care left to profit motive.
i prefer a balance....not an either/or proposition. We get into trouble when wo go to one extreme or another. Let business do business, with enough regulations to protect the average citizens from business.
We have to face facts...we need both. Industry is soulless...you can't expect good or evil out of it, only practicality. Government is cumbersome...you can't expect peak efficiency out of it, only level application of the law.
As far as health care goes, it's too important to be left to the cold caluculations and actuarial tables of business. Where maximization of profits means the suffering of the citizens of the nation, the government MUST intervene.
When left alone and unregulated, business can't help but do a lot of damage to our country...if there is profit to be made. The historical proofs of that are legion. However without business, government can't afford to exist....neither can our country.
What beliefs are those? Unlike the basic homogeneity of the Repubs, the Dem base contains a much wider variety of viewpoints and agendas. Heck, the Dem-controlled congress can't get behind a unified goal. Do you really believe that there is an agreed-upon common set of standards in the Democratic party?
(In a way, that's a good sign. There's a lot of truth to the old saw about congressional gridlock acting as a regulator for unfettered power, and a motivator for compromise.)
Scott, I don't see how in the long term you'd prevent big business from having power. Consumerism makes up two-thirds of our GDP so that money is going somewhere. Coupled with corporate innovation that capital will always be a powerful force. The best we can hope for, I think, is smart & agile regulation that allows growth while constraining the propensity for large scale meltdowns.