Let me try to respond to this one first. I got in a accident yesterday with my new car and so have been busy dealing with that [sad2] But that's a whole other story.
What about George W. Bush made you decide or think that he was a conservative? He really wasn't, anymore than Barack Obama is a liberal, they are politicians.
You're right, but he claimed he was a conservative, and during those years that is what I used as a baseline for conservatism (or Republicanism). I saw what he was doing and what Republicans were doing, and it was pretty easy to conclude that I was a liberal Democrat. I didn't know at the time how bad Democrats were because they were in the minority. All I knew was that I aligned with them on the checklist: gay rights, abortion, unions, etc. Basically, they weren't Republicans.
That's largely how I framed my politics, as American Democrats vs. American Republicans. Looking through Wikipedia, it is obvious that the various spectrum definitions are quite complicated (liberal vs conservative, progressive vs conservative, left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian, capitalism vs socialism, etc). It seems that most people here are libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, and on that spectrum I believe I am similarly aligned, as are many "liberals", as we've been calling them.
I find it interesting that after 6 years of living here, you were unaware of the annual vehicle excise tax.
I've only technically been a MA resident for 3 months, and thus have avoided most of the bullshit.
The parking ticket issue is interesting, because you are dealing with bureaucracy. By being presumptuous that "they" would not actually enforce parking regulations..
What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.
I think it is important to realize that we have had social engineering programs in this country since the Great Depression and we have had presidents and congresses that have been both left and right leaning, but in the main, government has gotten larger and yet we are seemingly plagued with more problems.
The Depression era programs (Social Security, etc) are usually held up as the shining examples of successful social programs. I think government is one of those things that you don't notice when it's doing things right, but only when it's doing things wrong. I think like every element of human civilization, it is an institution that has its share of problems but that we are continually improving, and serves an important purpose. I think we have a bad habit of romanticizing the past (for ex the 50's), not realizing that so many things have in fact improved. I think the calls to "get rid of government" are missing the point. Yes it needs to be constantly improved (sometimes by revolution), but it deserves some credit for what is does right.
One could argue that our current president inherited a lot of problems, but the simple fact is that he enjoyed a Congress that until the mid-term elections was dominated by his party in both houses. Mr. Obama was elected on a campaign of promise, hope and change...yet we see little evidence of it. Leaders are supposed to solve problems and if he failed to see the magnitude of the issues and offer viable solutions, then he has failed as a leader.
I agree, for the most part. I think the Republicans have been extremely obstructionist and in very bad faith, putting politics before the good of the country. Obama could have proposed a federal ban on all gun control measures, and Republicans still would have filibustered it. But Obama and the Democrats did not stand up to them, they just kept backing down, and that is inexcusable. Plus, Obama's habit of surrounding himself with Wall Street henchmen and former Bush officials sends a clear message that hope and change are not on the way.
Rather than say: "I am a liberal"...let's widen the discussion a bit, what do you think we should we do about:
1. Improving the quality of schools.
This is a tough one. I'm inclined to say we should pay teachers more and give them a more revered place in society. But I don't think teachers are the problem. Just like gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems, poor school performance is likely the result of so many external factors related to poverty. I think the focus on test scores and teachers' unions though is destructive. There are a lot of smart people out there though that know much better than I do that probably have much better ideas for improving our schools than these politicians looking to fire people up.
2. Getting people off of welfare
I think most progressives would shoot back that this image of lazy people getting fat off welfare is a figment of Reagan's imagination, or at least a very small percentage of recipients. And there will always be people abusing the system, like any system. I would also say that the need for welfare is again one of those symptoms of external factors, and could be reduced with programs designed to ensure that people have access to well-paying jobs. A good portion of people on food stamps and welfare are people who have full time jobs but are paid so little that they can't afford to support their families. As for concrete solutions, I've heard that things like the earned income tax credit have been successful in this regard. I'm pretty sure though that the regressive cuts to social programs and such that most Republicans favor will probably push more people onto the welfare rolls.
3. Stimulating the economy
4. Restoring jobs (which is related to number 3)
Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have written extensively about this, and I find their arguments very persuasive. The answer generally comes down to stimulus spending; spending cuts are the worst approach to take. Revenue is down during a depression, which increases the deficit, and people wrongly focus on that as the problem. You are supposed to run a deficit during a recession in order to pull the economy out of the shitter. Then, when revenue is up and the economy is humming, you can focus on paying down the deficit. If you really want to pay down the deficit, I would say the best thing to do would be to institute a financial transactions tax, and let Wall Street help pay for the mess they created. And repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
I think most progressives will tell you that corporations are sitting on a ton of cash right now and aren't hiring because there is not enough demand. Giving them tax breaks won't increase demand. There is no demand because people don't have jobs and thus money to spend. Government spending on things like infrastructure can reverse this cycle. The Obama stimulus was too little and was mostly tax cuts. Additionally, things like unemployment benefits are a great form of stimulus because these dollars are spent immediately.
Precisely what is the role of government in our lives, and how do we change the human condition? The one major social change that was effected legally but still not socially has been the area of Civil Rights. Racial prejudice continues to flourish, but legal equality, if not social equality has been achieved to a very high degree, and that is at the center of the issue in any examination of attempts to change the way we act and respond to things. We can legislate behavior but we cannot legislate what is in the human heart.
You would have to admit that socially, things have gotten better. Also, the government legislating civil rights would be an indication that the majority has accepted them anyway. Also, minorities are citizens too; isn't part of the government's function to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority?
For me, there are no true liberals or conservatives in politics. People who are driven to becoming a politician more out of ego and a desire for power than altruistic reasons. They may have started with a sense of doing good, but as Lord Acton said: "Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" . All politicians have IMO "interests" which override any philosophy or ideology and these interests are driven by special interests and greed. There is really only one political party in this country with left and right wings (and even then the situation remains fluid).
Yes, though there are some that come close to real human beings. Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Anthony Weiner...I still believe in these people.
Let me ask you this: what bad things happened to you personally under Bush? You started college, enjoyed a brilliant undergraduate career, and today because of your excellence in academic endeavors have secured a fairly high paying position as a first job in a time of high unemployment.
None, but I think that is part of being a progressive--having the ability to be concerned for people beyond your own lot (in fact, I think that is one of the textbook differences between liberals and conservatives, not that conservative are completely uncaring). One of the traits I see in conservatives that I despise is this inability to empathize with others not like them. This idea that if they could "make it", why couldn't anyone else? Why can't people pull themselves up by their bootstraps? And yet all too often it seems that once they find themselves in a similar position, they suddenly "get it" and change their minds (see: that Fox News anchor lady who had a child and discovered the wonders of maternity leave). In fact, I've read that Ayn Rand herself ended up needing help for the government for her medical needs, is this correct?
What has government done for you, to improve your quality of life? It would seem to me, that as of late, it is only causing your quality of life to suffer a bit.
This is one of those examples of us only seeing what government does wrong. Yes, government is not perfect and I am railing against those imperfections and abuses. But I'm also more than aware of the opportunities that I have been handed in life. Yeah I worked hard, but I'm under no illusion that I did it all myself and would have succeeded under any circumstances. I got a great education through the public school system. I didn't die from food poisoning because of the FDA or get lung cancer because of the EPA. My mom works at a nursing home where most residents pay via Social Security (many would probably be destitute without it). My Dad provided us with great health care because he is a member of a union, and government prevents corporations (to some extent) from cracking down on unions violently or by other illicit means.
It's easy to say: "well this is Massachusetts, it's different elsewhere." Well, to some degree or another it is the same everywhere. It's interesting, you come from New Hampshire which as a state values personal freedom and individual liberty more than in Massachusetts. You grew up in a so-called Red State or "free state" one of the reddest of the red states, and now you are complaining about Massachusetts which is the bluest of the "Blue States"...the very social programs and ideas that you say you embrace have been done on a state level for decades, yet you complain. I have trouble with this. Massachusetts is a model for what things are like when big government tries to socially engineer its populace. This is the way it is.
NH is not very red, it is purple if anything. But you're right, it does have a strong sense of freedom. The MA model is not a gold standard for "blue" ideology, no more than North Korea is the model for communism or Bush is the model for conservatism. MA does some things well, like its healthcare system, but it has a lot of problems that are not necessarily the result of liberal policies, but rather just shitty politicians.
We can never be like the Western European Social Democracies for a variety of historical and cultural reasons and now we are seeing more turmoil and problems in Europe after 60 plus years of embracing that philosophy.
I think it is easy to say "look at what's happening to Europe". But I think it is oversimplifying things to draw a straight line from socialism to riots/bankruptcy. From what I understand, the riots are the result of austerity measures put in place by the conservative government, which is decidedly not socialist. Socialism, like capitalism, has its problems, and those can be made worse by politicians.
Finally, what have you done personally to help improve our society? Instead of getting a nice job in Cambridge after grad school why didn't you volunteer your services to Americorps, for instance? You could have gone to some of the impoverished areas of our nation and done public service. Do you volunteer to work with charitable organizations such as food pantries, or homeless shelters? I know, maybe you tutor inner city kids in math or computer science once a week, sharing your considerable intellect and knowledge with them?
See final thoughts.
You went to New Hampshire and purchased a new car. Was that absolutely necessary? I don't know what kind of car you purchased or whether you needed a new one, but why didn't you buy a late model used one and contribute to a favorite charity with the left over money?
I held out on this as long as possible. I had a 98 Camry with 165K miles that was starting to break down in the middle of the road. It barely passed inspection, it had rust and was missing a door handle. I bought a new Carolla, which is the definition of inexpensive, boring, and reliable. I didn't like the idea of buying new but due to market conditions models only a few years old are almost as expensive, so it was the smart thing to do.
Why do you think that more government involvement in our lives would solve the problems that we face today?
See final thoughts.
You have probably never paid a substantial amount of income tax. Wait until April 15, 2012 and then you might question the role of government in our lives.
They've been taking it from my paycheck, and it is substantial.
So Zach, what are you doing to effect change? That, to me is the essential question.
Government is (supposed to) represent the will of the people, the mechanism by which we come together and accomplish things as a society that can't be accomplished alone or in private enterprise. Paying taxes and voting for politicians I think will enact the policies I believe will help our society is my means of contributing, and I would be happy to contribute even more in taxes if we had a truly progressive set of social policies to reduce poverty. I don't think more government is always the solution, and often less government is, in the cases where it is doing more harm than good or abusing its power. The answer is the *right* government involvement, not an amount. Not everyone should have to do volunteer work; most people should be able to contribute money instead, through taxes, and have that be effectively translated into charity by government programs. It's like, in a modern economy not everyone grows their own food; it is much more efficient for people to do what they are best at, and then use the proceeds to buy food.
I apologize if my thoughts are not super-coherent, esp towards the end, this post was a lot of work.