I wouldn't dare speak for conservatives so I'll refer to an article written by Jennifer Rubin in her column in the Washington Post - Right Turn. The piece is Ten Things Republicans Believe. I found it a very interesting read and agreed with much of it... even though the implimentation of some of the ideas would likely be very different. For example, she says that Republicans are Pro-Israel. I would argue that being Pro-Israel is not the same as supporting Israeli abuse of Palestinians. Even less so, is support of Israel the same as supporting the expansion of settlements in occupied land. Indeed, I would argue that is precisely the worst thing possible that can happen to Israel as each settlement makes a 2 state solution more difficult and a 1 state solution means either apartheid or a nation wherein the Jewish population are overwhelmed by the Palestinians.
Two differences really jumped out for me.
The first is not as explicit as it could be. Rubin says that there is a distrust of centralized power when she really means to say that Republicans do not trust government. The implication is that they do trust centralized industrial and economic power. Limited regulations inevitably lead to the centralization of those two types of power and the unwritten theme is that that is just the natural course of things. In effect, she says they do not trust government, but they do trust multinationals and big banks. They trust institutions that have as their primary purpose in existence, a profit motive for a limited number of people and which have no basic commitment to the welfare of this nation vs. institutions that have the public good of US citizens as their primary motivation. Frankly, that bit just makes no sense to me at all. I understand about the failings of human nature and that they play themselves out in government agencies. Yes, government bureaucracies screw up sometimes. The same is true in the business world... only in businesses, without government regulations, there is no recourse and the power is unchecked.
A second important difference is what she refers to as an "originalist theory of interpretation of the constitution." She says that those with a different theory of interpretation "grant judges free rein to think up new rights and powers." Again... this makes no sense to me. One must understand the Constitution as having been written in an historical and cultural context that is not the same as the one in which we live today. She mentions the 2nd amendment in another place. Let's agree for argument sake that it gives the right to bear arms to all citizens (which I would not agree with under normal circumstances). If we think of the context when "arms" = muskets, do we take it to mean today that individuals can own muskets? That was the literal original intent if we agree to the first premise. Or do we take it to mean than individual citizens can carry any arms that the US Army uses (which at the time was pretty much a musket)? If the latter, then should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads? If not, why not? How do we translate that into today's world? Or do we take the sentence literally and agree that it referred to State Militias, used primarily in the south as a means of suppressing slave revolts and was included as a way of reassuring Southern states that the federal government would not take away their slave based economies and so has literally zero meaning in 2013?
The piece of the article that was encouraging to me was that there are some places where we agree even if implementations differ. At least then, there is room to talk. Here's to hoping that we all can do just that.
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
the problem with small government
The problem with small government is that there are big problems. We saw that this week in a major way. Sandy barreled down on the northeast and the damage is astounding. There is no way that the strapped states could meet the needs of their devastated populations. Many of them have provisions in their constitutions that they must have balanced budgets so the only way they could address the problems of a natural disaster like Sandy would be to decimate all of their programs. It simply would not work without obscene human costs.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tea Party again
very interesting... my post on the Tea Party has received about 3X's more hits than any other post I've made. So, I guess if I want my blog to get more readers, I should keep posting on the Tea Party.
In addition to just a few comments, I've gotten some notes sent directly to me so there is a bit of material to which I can respond.
One person reminded me that the Tea Party is not monolithic and that many in that movement would not agree with everything I said. I agree. It is not a monolithic movement... but that frightens me even more. It seems to me that many of the more extreme voices are in positions of leadership and that while large numbers of the participants may not agree with some of the more radical views, they are still supporting and voting for the more radical fringe. For example, there are a number of very visible and vocal folk speaking out against public education. Does that mean all Tea Party folk want to see the public schools all shut down tomorrow? No, but if that vocal anti-public education leader gets elected, you can bet they will run with their agenda and claim a mandate for it. Same thing is true about social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, the FDA, OSHA, etc. etc.
One person chastised me for adding in infrastructure to my argument saying that n Tea Party person is against the government keeping up the infrastructure. Well... if that is true, and I'm not sure it is, then it won't be long. Let's be consistent here. If they are truly advocating that we stop the government from doing anything that is not explicitly outlined in the constitution, then they have to come out against government maintenance of infrastructure. It ain't there. And FWIW, Eisenhower's interstate system is the most "socialist" thing the federal government has ever done.
This same person said to me, "there are those with common sense who simply want to see smaller government and less taxes. We know it will be painful. And frankly we don't care." And that is the difference isn't it? I do care. And there are some pains that I believe we as a society should do everything we can do to alleviate.
I have no illusions that government can fix everything or save us from all ills. I see the problems, the corruption, the game playing, and the cronyism. I do believe though, that there are some things that only government can do and, that if this is to be the kind of society that I believe God yearns for us to be, then, government must do those things. Yes, it needs serious reform. Yes, we need to hold our elected officials accountable, but making government so small and weak that we can drown it in the bathtub is exactly the wrong answer. Again, I don't want to live in a Tea Party world and I would bet that most folk at the rallies wouldn't either if they really thought about the implications.
Finally, I've gotten a few comments about the "fruits and nuts of California," obviously putting me in that crop (sorry for the pun). By way of bio, I grew up in a blue collar family in Pittsburgh, PA and lived 18 years there, 3 in central PA, 13 in Philadelphia, 14 in Albany, NY, and 8 in CA. So, I'm not quite a Californian despite being seduced by the weather, the produce, and the beauty of the place. That said, the common misconception that California is a bastion of liberalism is just silly. Think about the last two presidents who came from CA - Nixon & Reagan. Instead, California is a polar place with lots of extreme liberals and lots of extreme conservatives and they never talk to one another or work together for the common good. The end result is an extremely dysfunctional state government that does next to nothing. Add in the system of propositions and you have a real mess. Unfortunately, I think that California model is the one being adopted on a federal level. That does not bode well for anyone.
In addition to just a few comments, I've gotten some notes sent directly to me so there is a bit of material to which I can respond.
One person reminded me that the Tea Party is not monolithic and that many in that movement would not agree with everything I said. I agree. It is not a monolithic movement... but that frightens me even more. It seems to me that many of the more extreme voices are in positions of leadership and that while large numbers of the participants may not agree with some of the more radical views, they are still supporting and voting for the more radical fringe. For example, there are a number of very visible and vocal folk speaking out against public education. Does that mean all Tea Party folk want to see the public schools all shut down tomorrow? No, but if that vocal anti-public education leader gets elected, you can bet they will run with their agenda and claim a mandate for it. Same thing is true about social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, the FDA, OSHA, etc. etc.
One person chastised me for adding in infrastructure to my argument saying that n Tea Party person is against the government keeping up the infrastructure. Well... if that is true, and I'm not sure it is, then it won't be long. Let's be consistent here. If they are truly advocating that we stop the government from doing anything that is not explicitly outlined in the constitution, then they have to come out against government maintenance of infrastructure. It ain't there. And FWIW, Eisenhower's interstate system is the most "socialist" thing the federal government has ever done.
This same person said to me, "there are those with common sense who simply want to see smaller government and less taxes. We know it will be painful. And frankly we don't care." And that is the difference isn't it? I do care. And there are some pains that I believe we as a society should do everything we can do to alleviate.
I have no illusions that government can fix everything or save us from all ills. I see the problems, the corruption, the game playing, and the cronyism. I do believe though, that there are some things that only government can do and, that if this is to be the kind of society that I believe God yearns for us to be, then, government must do those things. Yes, it needs serious reform. Yes, we need to hold our elected officials accountable, but making government so small and weak that we can drown it in the bathtub is exactly the wrong answer. Again, I don't want to live in a Tea Party world and I would bet that most folk at the rallies wouldn't either if they really thought about the implications.
Finally, I've gotten a few comments about the "fruits and nuts of California," obviously putting me in that crop (sorry for the pun). By way of bio, I grew up in a blue collar family in Pittsburgh, PA and lived 18 years there, 3 in central PA, 13 in Philadelphia, 14 in Albany, NY, and 8 in CA. So, I'm not quite a Californian despite being seduced by the weather, the produce, and the beauty of the place. That said, the common misconception that California is a bastion of liberalism is just silly. Think about the last two presidents who came from CA - Nixon & Reagan. Instead, California is a polar place with lots of extreme liberals and lots of extreme conservatives and they never talk to one another or work together for the common good. The end result is an extremely dysfunctional state government that does next to nothing. Add in the system of propositions and you have a real mess. Unfortunately, I think that California model is the one being adopted on a federal level. That does not bode well for anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
