I love that term and the associated description. Well said! Puts into words some of the uneasiness I feel when I hear about situations that could be described as the “failure to validate” scenario.
Maybe I’m not really a progressive, I don’t know. There’s some tropes in this thread that sound like caricatures - for instance, Nichol’s tweet-thread, where he claims “progressives trash history.” What is that supposed to mean? I read that and I hear “The Civil War really was about states rights!” or “We didn’t commit genocide against Native Americans!” Nor do I want government for the sake of government; in my mind, the role of government is to ensure equal protection and due process for its citizens without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation - or - and despite my own personal animus towards it - even religion (although to me faith is a personal choice and should remain there, but I don’t want to go off on that tangent.)
I also believe in civil liberties and the freedom to make bad choices, so long as harm does not come to others. Primarily though, I think government should ensure consumer, labor and environmental safeguards against capitalistic excesses. I fail to understand how that intrudes on individual liberty (I mean, who benefits from dumping coal wastes in streams or wiping out the last condor, just because?) It’d be great if that wasn’t necessary, but history and current events all demonstrate why that’s not a reality.
The larger picture though, as was touched on up thread, is that our political system is badly broken; it’s not something I foresee getting fixed in my lifetime.
Pretty much this for me. Although I believe the enmity between the left and the right (and not just the far left and far right) leads to more partisanship which isn’t healthy for a two party system such as ours.
But I am willing to accept socialized medicine now as I do believe it is the only real option.
Is the awareness that unchecked capitalism looks like it’s going to kill us all an ideology? Asking for a friend.
I realize you’re being ironic, and you probably know this, but yes there is.
Social Ecology, which has splintered into a myriad of conflicting philosophies, none of which have gained any traction or (meaningful) political influence anywhere in the world (unfortunately, from my point of view.)
I get that proposed solutions can turn into ideology, but I don’t think there’s anything especially ideological about being aware of the problem.
My problem with liberals isn’t so much with your standard run of the mill liberal, it is with those on the far left who are now the ones guilty of labeling things and demanding labels for things. The far left also has developed into the group that believes they know everything and that they are always right in their beliefs. That kind of arrogance tends to splinter, rather than coalesce.
This series of points (and really, the broader context in which you discuss each of them - consider the quotes placeholders) seems to contradict the first point (or at least, the normal reasoning behind that point), where you are skeptical of government programs to fix things. Your problem seems to be specifically that you think the Federal government is somehow incapable of doing things right (because of some specific examples where you see it failing) as opposed to a philosophical disagreement with the goal of collective action. Passing the buck to churches and charities, schools and local government doesn’t seem to have anything to do with freedom, only efficiency. But then the question I have is why do we need a program at all? If private industry and local authorities are sufficient to address the problem, why did it even crop up on the national radar - shouldn’t it have just been handled? What would you do differently to make sure that these issues are addressed (by whoever is most appropriate)?
I don’t mean to pick on Strollen; this idea about whether or not the Federal government is capable of solving problems seems to be a recurring theme - the idea that these programs only work if the government is staffed by angels. But why is that such a strong theme? What is the alternative? A lot of these programs depend on subsidies from the richer states to the poorer ones, so a comparable effort wouldn’t even be possible with local resources alone.
I think the basic point is how much money has been spent since the creation of the Great Society on social issues. Now I don’t deny the goals were honorable, and that some programs probably have worked. And I am willing to accept the argument that had all that money not been spent things very well may be worse.
But things are still pretty bad out there.
This post shows all the hallmarks of the rhetorical device known as “beating the straw man.”
Well, I’m moderate conservative, not a libertarian. So “freedom” whatever that means isn’t a super priority. I do feel society has both a moral and practical (keep the mobs from rioting and cutting off the heads of the rich) to help the less fortunate. This isn’t even a particularly unusual view for traditional Republicans, Bush 41’s" A 1000 points of light", or Bush 43’s “compassionate conservatism” Yes this is about efficiency, we live in a world of limited resources, we can only a do a fraction of the worthwhile projects be it providing healthcare for all or going to Mars.
As to why we need the program at the Federal level it is a good question. I understand that during the Great Depression dramatic measures were necessary. Programs like Social Security started which helped to rectify that reality that many people make poor financial decisions, like saving money for old age. Government has a critical roles in developing infrastructure some of it should be done at national level (e.g. an air traffic control system), and if they can help out during bad times with providing people with jobs that’s a win win.
However, the federal government success at running social program is mixed at best. If we look at LBJ Great Society, and subsequent War on Poverty programs it is pretty hard to argue that has been particularly successful at reducing poverty in this country. 15% in 1965 when it started to 12.7% today.
The cost has been tremendous, Cato puts the number at a somewhat suspect 15 trillion from 65-2012. But even if that number is off by 50% and the poverty rate is lower than the official rate it has still be ridiculously expensive.
What is the alternative? A lot of these programs depend on subsidies from the richer states to the poorer ones,
No it’s not the states. California doesn’t write a check to Mississipi. The subsidy comes from transferring money from rich people to poor people. Now it is true that rich people tend to congregate in certain areas and poor in other areas, but let’s be clear it is the people, not the states where the money comes from and goes to. (Block grants are a bit of an exception). Now there are two ways of transferring money from poor people one is involuntary, taxes, the other way is voluntary contributions to charity. American’s are the most charitable people on earth, we donate more money and time than any other country. Of the $400 billion that’s get donated at least 15% is directed toward poor people/emergency aid but no more than 25% ~$100 billion for poor people. That’s actually a reasonable percentage of the $250 billion we spend on welfare (liberal estimate) to 1 trillion (Cato’s estimate). The government can nudge people to contribute more to social services charities.
The bulk of charitable is given to religions, with the rest spread fairly evenly among, education, health, arts and culture, human services, animals and environment, and public sociality benefits (voter education, civil liberties).
Supporting the local opera, art museum, or your local church are all fine things to do, but the beneficiary generally includes yourself and folks like yourself. There is no reason the government has to treat donation to those of charities the same way as those that directly help people, like Goodwill, Salvation Army, Red Cross.
In fairness to @Scuzz, I am the living embodiment of the grimdark self important liberal hellfuture he truly fears, and he’s got to read my bullshit here every day.
Unless he’s got me blocked by now. I wouldn’t blame him!
It’s not a strawman at all. He’s not suggesting that it’s a widespread view in the left. He’s criticizing those who believe that. And some folks definitely do.
Also note that the poor give a large percentage of their income to charity and those who are wealthy, and for some stupid reason charitable giving is tax deductable.
My I miss West Wing. I laughed almost as hard as I did the first time I saw it.
I’d much prefer a government match of say 25% rather than a tax deduction, for social welfare programs. It works for NPR pledge drives and for the “next 30 minute, your pledge will be matched by Warren B.”.
These people that “definitely do,” do any of them have names?
Armando seems to be self identifying himself that way.
Yes45.
He never said he was talking about posters here, and I think your aggression on this point is against the spirit of the thread.
The spirit of the thread is to celebrate the misbehavior of the imagined.
No, the spirit of the thread was to inquire, sincerely, what non-liberals disagree with, dislike, or hate about modern American liberalism,to explore both intellectual differences and more visceral differences, without gainsaying the non-liberals. Despite the fact that I broke my own rule (I’m sorry!) that was the spirit of the thread and I’ve certainly gained some insight into non-liberal views.
To summarize in very approximate fashion, what I take away from the thread is that most of the non-liberals disagree with liberalism intellectually due to disagreements about issues of principle such as how government affects individual rights and freedoms, and due to practical concerns about how effective government is balanced against its cost. Most of the non-liberals also have a more visceral antipathy to perceptions of far-left overreach and arrogance, and to the sometimes judgmental and contemptuous attitude of some liberals.