reposted from November because it still seems relevant; slightly edited
I often find myself explaining to people that the words republican, democrat, liberal, and conservative describe four different things, not two. Too many people are under the misconception that republican is synonymous with conservative, and democrat is synonymous with liberal. They use the words interchangeably, but that is an inaccurate portrayal.
The truth is, not all members of the "big two" parties can be defined according to the stereotypes. A few examples:
Liberals are perceived as anti-war, yet Democrats presided over WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam, Bosnia, and ran their 2004 presidential candidate as a war veteran. At the same time, Republicans portray themselves as the hawk's party, when in fact many republican proponents of war did not serve any military duty, some being actual draft dodgers, while many anti-war democrats actually did serve in the military. Conservatism defines itself as the standard-bearer of fiscal restraint, yet Republicans outspend democrats and run up astronomical debts. Democrats are regarded as creators of bigger government, yet the Clinton administration reduced the size of government while the Reagan administration expanded it. And at one time, the Democrats were the southern-state, "state's rights" party, while the Republicans placed federal authority over the states; a situation that reversed in later years. Republicans proclaim themselves to be the party of Christian values and accuse Democrats of being opposed to them, when in fact, republican values (pro-execution, pro-war, opposed to social programs) are decidedly anti-Christian, while democratic values (generally anti-death-penalty, anti-war, pro-social-programs) seem truer to Christian ones.
At the grassroots, some Democrats and Republicans are openly critical of their own parties or of politicians presented to them as their only choice on voting day. My observation is that most voters' values are blended from left- and right-, more or less according to what is appropriate in their lives. Once they were called moderate, although that term was saddled with a derogatory connotation of indecisiveness (wrongly so, in my opinion). In any event, I maintain that not all republicans are conservative, not all democrats are liberal, and to lump them all together paints a picture that just isn't true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You are right in pointing out how liberal doesn't always mean Democrat and conservative doesn't always mean Republican. Also, the current Republican adminstration is not conservative when it comes to spending, as you pointed out. There is one major thing I disagree with you on though. You think that it is Christian to support social programs. Basically, what you are saying is that it is virtuous to take other peoples money and redistribute it as you (govt.) see fit. Jesus never said that govt. should tax the hell out of the people who work and redistribute the wealth. Charity is not giving away other peoples money. Guess what happened in the 80's when Reagan reduced the top tax rate from the ridiculous 70% to less than 40%. Not only did tax revenues increase as a result of growth, but charitable contributions also increased considerably. So if you really care anything about charity, then you would be for less govt.
You play fast and loose with statistics Deano! What are your sources here? It sounds like you are parroting some idiotic limpbowel, I mean limbush, oops...limbaugh spew.
I personally think we should cut the military budget completely and start rebuilding the infrastructure of this country. What a great jobs program. Money spent to improve our living conditions instead of destroying someone else's...
what a novel concept.
Maybe then Mike we would be like those bustling economies in France and Germany. Did you really just say cut the military budget completely? Why don't we just put a big sign in front of the statue of liberty that says "Surrender". According to the New York: AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, the annual rate of growth in total giving during the eighties was nearly 55% higher than the rate in the previous 25 years. The growth rate of corporate giving was 52% higher in the eighties than in the previous 25 years. Mike, you should move to that workers pardise in Cuba.
Glen Dean, we see social programs from opposite perspectives because you perceive their funding as something taken from you by someone else for someone else, whereas I see it as some among us sharing our bounty with others among us. You seem to see the government as a separate entity taking what is yours and giving it away, I see it as a part of society which includes us, in which we participate and take care of each other. One is exclusive and one is inclusive.
Now, you might say that yours is more realistic while mine is more idealistic, but that's okay. We probably agree that ideals are worth living and dying for, we just disagree on which ones.
As for christianity, I think it includes more passages in favor of caring for others than for weilding the "terrible swift sword," but then I'm thinking new testament stuff there. I'm no biblical scholar, but I've got the gist of the main plot.
I have seen the stats on the increase in charitable giving, and I applaud charitable giving, but when I speak of social programs I speak primarily of areas not adequately supported by charities. In my 11-or-so years' experience as a social worker, I can say that charitable organizations have great strengths in some areas (I have wholehearted support for them and I am "constantly amazed" at the great things they do), but simply don't have the horsepower to carry the weight of other needed services. I can give you two examples off the top of my head of social programs that actually benefit the taxpayers in the longrun:
1) Employment Programs - in Arizona it was called Job Service, in California it's CalWorks. Either way it gets people working again and contributing to society. I am a product of the Arizona Job Service's Dislocated Worker Program, which helped to retrain me after I was laid off from an obsolete industry (typesetting). The taxpayers' investment in me has payed off.
2) Child Support Enforcement: where I am currently employed, we collect money from absent parents to repay the county for welfare given to assist to their children and the custodial parents. It's a social program which repays the taxpayers for public assistance that was given out to custodial parents who couldn't find a charity to help feed their kids or assist with medical bills, etc.
There are others, but my point is, that's what I see as social programs, and it comes from being right there in the trenches. It's not the 80's neocon myth of the cadillac welfare queen. The liberal perception is that people form societies together to support each other, and if I was a Christian I would say he probably smiles down on a society wherein the "haves" helping the "have nots" is woven into the fabric of it's culture.
My mom is a retired social worker from the state. You sound a lot like her, Yadda, yadda, yadda :)
Deano, I did say cut the military completely. Surrender my ass. If the biggest superpower in the world (us)
Can't control a piss ant little country like Iraq, who do you think could come in here and tell us gun totin' whackos what to do? Oh yeah, I forgot, you gun totin' sheeple repukes automatically bend over at the site of an authority figure. So I guess it wouldn't be that hard to conquer the red states.
Glen Dean, what does "yada, yada, yada" mean? Does it mean, "Yes, SheaNC, you're right?" If that's what you mean, then thanks.
Sheanc, I guess it could mean that. I think I watch to much Seinfeld. It is kind of like yeah I know, or blah, blah, blah.
Mike, we are controlling Iraq. Iraq now is no different than Germany in 1945 and 1946. The same thing was happening then. As for the rest of what you said, I have more class than to engage in that type of discussion.
Ooooooo... there are a lot of different replies to your statement "we are controlling Iraq."
1. We are controlling Iraq - huh? I thought we went there to give control of Iraq back to the Iraqi people.
2. We are controlling Iraq - ...by military force, under martial law.
3. We are controlling Iraq - ...even though the war was supposed to have ended a long time ago, and was supposed to pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues.
4. We are controlling Iraq - ...while telling the world we have brought them freedom and democracy.
5. We are controlling Iraq - we keep telling folks back in the U.S., although the country is an uncontrolled battleground and the insurgents won't go away and military analysis reveals that our "control" will go on for another 7-12 years, and...
6. We are controlling Iraq - ...so come to Iraq on your next vacation! Known as the cradle of civilization, our museums contain... oops, I forgot... the Americans allowed those to be looted while they were busy guarding the oil ministry. Sorry!
I am not worthy SheaNC!!!
As usual Deano, you've swallowed the lies of the swine in the whitehouse hook line and sinker.
Rice and Rumsfeld lied about occupied Germany to make occupied Iraq seem less a quagmire
Postwar Germany was nothing like Iraq
by Daniel Benjamin, Slate Aug. 29, 2003
It's hard to understand exactly what Rumsfeld was saying, but if he meant that the Nazi resisters killed Americans after the surrender, this would be news. According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany — and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases — was zero.
A BIG FAT ZERO!!!
Iraq is under control ...right.
We conquered a country, occupied it, jailed their dictator, installed a government, held an election. What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said this supposed to be easy. Good grief. Every life is valuable but when you compare the ammount of casualities to what we have accomplished, there is no discussion. I know that you and Mike wish that things over there were going worse but they are going remarkably well. Besides, you guys were opposed to the war in the first place. You just use any bad news to make your case. It's not like you were for the War and then saw things going bad, and now you are against it. You were probably jumping up and down during Abu Ghraib. Do all of the murders in Washington DC mean that we are not controlling Washington?So you think Berlin was a good vaction spot in 1945?
Glen Dean, your statements are flying off in several directions at once, and none of them are hitting the mark.
"We conquered a country, occupied it," - which was totally unnecessary, and immoral; and the president and his cabinet had to lie their asses off to justify it. Besides that, America is not supposed to go around conquering and overthrowing countries. Thanks to the Bush regime, we are now regarded as the evil empire.
"compare the ammount of casualities to what we have accomplished," indeed. We do. Do you subscribe to the old vietnam war justification, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"?
"I know that you and Mike wish that things over there were going worse" - to that I can only reply, bullshit. You flunked your mindreading class, dude.
"Besides, you guys were opposed to the war in the first place." Damn right, I am proud to say I was opposed to the war from day one.
"You just use any bad news to make your case." - Glass houses.
"It's not like you were for the War and then saw things going bad, and now you are against it." Obscure, but correct. :)
"You were probably jumping up and down during Abu Ghraib." Practically, yes. With rage, tempered by the sickening humiliation that the rest of the world saw us imitating the world's most dispicable thugs, including those whom we claim to oppose.
"Do all of the murders in Washington DC mean that we are not controlling Washington?" Poor analogy. I don't know what sort of rosy springtime pastoral images of Iraq you're seeing on Fox, but Iraq is not urban America. Compare it to Belfast or Beirut or something.
"So you think Berlin was a good vaction spot in 1945?" Huh? I missed the part where it mentioned that...
Post a Comment