Comments from Democrats on the Keith Thompson essay lead me to believe that they see themselves as more virtuous than Republicans. Isn’t it odd that the political process, which is first and foremost a discussion of policy alternatives to meet common ends, would degenerate into an opportunity for assertions of personal moral virtue?
I don’t think there’s a great difference in moral values between Democrats and Republicans, because we all believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where we disagree is over the tactics and policies that make these desirable ends available to the greatest number of people. Democrats (and others on the left) want to soak successful individuals and corporations and transfer their wealth to the less successful. They want to impose heavy regulations on business based on a “precautionary principle” that makes it hard to accumulate capital. They want quotas or preferences to create the illusion of equality of talent and motivation where it may not actually exist. They’re more concerned about the size of the gap between rich and poor than they are with the objective state of the poor.
Republicans see these policies as punishing virtuous behavior and rewarding indolence, ignorance, and jealousy.
So who has the moral high ground?
Republicans (and others on the right) want to soak individuals down on their luck and let corporations run rampant without the expectation of civil relief and to transfer the wealth from the less successful to those who are wealthier. They want to ensrhine privilege, regardless of merit.
They want no way to redress wrongs or to make whole people who have been harmed by past injustices. They’re more concerned about the absolute value of wealth of the rich than they are with the objective state of the poor.
There’s no moral high ground in politics, at least not one that lasts very damn long.
Politics measures morals at the ballot box, and we know how that’s been coming out lately.
John, you make some curious remarks. At least, I can’t figure them out. You talk about soaking those down on their luck, which sounds like bad business. Don’t the others have more to give? And you talk about being more concerned about wealth than poverty as if that’s a bad thing. Don’t all of us have more of an interest in our own well-being than in evertbody else’s(, if we’re to be honest for a change)? I know the essence of the left program is “we care – they don’t” but in reality it’s not healthy to care too much, or truthful to claim to care more than we really do.
We have a responsibility to our neighbors to leave them the hell alone most of the time.
I always find it amusing when non-Republicans claim to know exactly what Republicans want. I’ve been one for 28 years now and have never wanted any of the things John K. so confidently asserts that I want. Nor do any of the other Republicans I know.
The high point of this country’s economic life occurred under John Kenneth Galbraith, whose goal of leveling among economic strata put spending power in the hands of the majority of Americans and spread wealth through all levels. The present administration concentrates its benefits on the corporations and the extremely wealthy, which diminishes spending power in the public realm and hinders the economy.
Moral high ground isn’t the only definition of seeking to benefit the entire country, but definitely giving opportunity to the underprivileged has moral grounding in addition to being economically advantageous.
Don’t all of us have more of an interest in our own well-being than in evertbody else’s(, if we’re to be honest for a change)?
My own well-being is really- really- intertwined with everybody else’s well-being. Recognition of this and taking advantage of it has been the key to running a successful propserous state since there have been states.
While we can have the most effect on our own prosperity by working, to ignore the obvious fact above is to invite discord, and a degree of suffering which eventually disrupts our own well-being.
Thus, if only because of an enlightened self-interest (well, I’d go further than that, actually) we should make sure the lot of the less fortunate includes a definite way out.
We have a responsibility to our neighbors to leave them the hell alone most of the time.
Can’t disagree, but I’d say that is yet another reason why I think the Republicans are more of a threat to our individual liberty than the Democrats.
Dr. Weevil:
I always find it amusing when Republicans claim to know exactly what non-Republicans want. I’ve been one for over 30 years now and have never wanted any of the things Richard – or presumably you- so confidently asserts that I want. Nor do any of the other Democrats or non-Republicans I know.
I don’t believe you’re being truthful, John.
* You do want to tax successful individuals and corporations more heavily than the less successful – that’s the basis of progressive taxation.
* You do want to impose heavy regulations on business based on a “precautionary principle” that makes it hard to accumulate capital – that’s the basis of the Kyoto Treaty and similar plans.
* You do want quotas or preferences to create the illusion of equality of talent and motivation where it may not actually exist – that’s the basis of Affirmative Action.
* And you are more concerned about the size of the gap between rich and poor than they are with the objective state of the poor – you’ve said you fear revolution if the gap gets too large.
So come on, be honest. The fallacy of the left wing program is the assumption that you can create wealth in the underclass by transfer payments. In fact, this program creates indolence. If you want to increase the wealth of the lower classes you have to instill industry and education.
There is a tendency among the left to want to preserve poverty so they can feel virtuous about helping the poor – with someone else’s money. This really isn’t helpful for anyone in the long run, but it accounts for all the rhetoric about compassion.
Richard:
-Simply because somebody earns more money doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve been “more successful.”
– What is a a “heavy regulation?”
– Why do you think I want quotas or preferences?
-No, I didn’t say I “feared” revolution, but rather that recognition of that everyone’s well being was intertwined and taking advantage of it has been the key to running a successful propserous state since there have been states.
People want preconceived notions for a variety of reasons, but often, as in this case, reality diverges from those notions.
…giving opportunity to the underprivileged… is not the same as giving rewards for indolence and irresponsible behavior. Democrats are generally hostile to the very concept of policing welfare rolls for fraud and abuse, but it’s human nature to take the easy way. The success of the welfare reform has proved that the Democrat attitude toward the poor – coddling – is counter-productive.
Democrats are generally hostile to the very concept of policing welfare rolls for fraud and abuse…
This opinion can be traced to what evidence to back it up?
I spent hours in legislative committee rooms while Republicans tried to tighten up the quality control on welfare while the Dems tried to loosen it, and I’m sure it’s a nation-wide pattern. Dems regard verification of eligibility as an affront to the virtuous nature of the poor, of course.
It’s similar to what we see with voting – Dems get dizzy if somebody in the leg proposes ID requirements for voters, so people register dogs and cats to vote absentee.
This ain’t exactly a revelation, you know.