I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I have it, I have figured it out, and I now know the difference between a conservative and a liberal.

A conservative overestimates the intelligence and common sense of the average person and thus believes they are capable of 100% responsibility for their actions.

The liberal underestimates the intelligence and common sense of the average person and thus believes they are capable of no responsibility for their actions.

All is right with the world, now all we have to do is get the liberals and the conservatives to explain their theories to the average person, after the election of course.

[spot]

Quinn, don't you feel the need to define your vocabulary at any time before you use words which have such different uses in different settings?

The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?

If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.

John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

[gmc]

An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?

[spot]

I've no problem in using the word "liberal" to mean anything at all in any given discussion. What I've found, though, is that if it's left undefined then arguments tend to list deficiencies according to one definition and then segue into applying the consequent criticism onto people who only qualify as liberals under other criteria.

There really are several disparate groups who describe themselves as liberal, and still others who are described by third parties as liberals, and the use of the word has varied considerably decade by decade and country by country. I don't object to using any definition at all, so long as it's explicit from the start and stays constant throughout.

I commend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal as a starting point.

In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, "liberalism" has come to mean support for freedom of speech, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women, civil liberties, equal rights for gay people, a welcoming attitude to immigrants, equal rights for the disabled, and multilateralism and international institutions. All of these aims are mostly shared by British and other European liberals. American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. In Europe these views are shared by Social Democrats, but not necessarily by liberals, especially in France and continental Europe. Britain's liberals would agree with most of these positions, but affirmative action would be described as an illiberal policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...2liberalism.22

Can we take that as a mutual working definition and then not stray from it? By all means don't, Quinn - all you need do is provide an alternative and we'll sign up to use that instead.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by spot

Quinn, don't you feel the need to define your vocabulary at any time before you use words which have such different uses in different settings?

The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?

If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.

John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

It seems to me that JFKs definition is just fine for a conservative as well, the problem is not with the goals, but how you reach them. It's like the old fish or fishing story. You can care about someone and either give them food or give them the tools and ability to feed themselves. Simplistic I know, but I am sure you get the idea. Today's definition of a liberal, while perhaps technically inaccurate, has come to mean turning to government for solutions first and wealth transfer to do that. In other words hold down the bow of the boat to raise the stern. The other view would be to try and raise the entire boat.

While the middle class keeps the factories, stories and offices humming and does all the "hard" work, they are not the ones who generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development. While it is easy to point fingers at the top 5% and their incomes, the fact is they still pay the overall majority of taxes and pull the economy along. The visible Wall Street types are only a very small segment of that 5%, most are small businessmen and women, professionals and entrepreneurs.

The point is that if you push the bow of the boat too low as it appears some politicians would like or at least make you think so, the whole boat sinks.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by gmc

An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?

You are right, the use of liberal has come to mean something quite different than the correct definition. But it is really not the lable that is the issue, it is the approach to defining and solving human problems.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. Can we take that as a mutual working definition and then not stray from it? By all means don't, Quinn - all you need do is provide an alternative and we'll sign up to use that instead.

Allow me to modify based on today's environment:

American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty, quality health care for all, education, support for housing, retirement income, standards of living, and parenting by government intervention, and an expanded progressive income tax to the extent a growing portion of the population does not share in the burden, positive role for organized labor even at the expense of a competitive economy or the rights of a non-unionized workforce, and the protection of the environment.

As you no doubt have already surmised, I am not liberal by the above, but I certainly do believe in those lofty goals. It is the journey, not the destination that is in dispute. Interestingly, in the US we have tried both paths in the last century, about 50/50 in terms of years of each approach and yet, all the problems are still with us from poverty to health care coverage and all the rest. We have had the War On Poverty, the Great Society, the New Deal, etc.

I wonder what that tells us? Perhaps that some problems cannot be solved for us by any means and that each individual is the real key.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by gmc

An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?

For the same reason that knickers, lift, boot etc. as used in the U.S. have entirely different meanings. You know that.

[spot]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

While the middle class keeps the factories, stories and offices humming and does all the "hard" work, they are not the ones who generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development. While it is easy to point fingers at the top 5% and their incomes, the fact is they still pay the overall majority of taxes and pull the economy along.

You do have a tendency toward selective analysis, Quinn. You use the word "taxes" and actually mean, at a guess, Federal Income Tax. Three quarters of US taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. We did an analysis of US taxation on FG a while ago which included property tax, sales tax, state tax, we came to the conclusion that for most people the combined rate was around 45% for most employed people dropping to around 36% for incomes over $2 million a year.

The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by spot

You do have a tendency toward selective analysis, Quinn. You use the word "taxes" and actually mean, at a guess, Federal Income Tax. Three quarters of US taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. We did an analysis of US taxation on FG a while ago which included property tax, sales tax, state tax, we came to the conclusion that for most people the combined rate was around 45% for most employed people dropping to around 36% for incomes over $2 million a year.

The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.

In fact, I was referencing income taxes and you are correct there are many taxes unrelated to income level or limited in that way and I think that needs to be fixed, especially property taxes where they are (as far as I know) unrelated to income so people who stay in a home for many years cannot possibly keep up with the rising taxes (caused in part by the decisions of politicians to spend money in other ways). As far as things like Social Security go you have to look at the other side of the equation, for example, what percentage of pre-retirement income does the benefit make up and what portion of retirement income does the person need to self fund. While the person making $40,000 a year pays 6.20% of it in SS taxes, their benefit is a far greater percentage of their pre-retirement income.

I make no such implication about meaningful reward and money, but the reality is as it is. There are not many people who would risk their money, work 80 hours a week for no monetary gain, at least to a point and then many of those people start giving back. Ask the charities in New York what is happening to their fundraising now. The reality is that those fat cats and disposed corporations gave a lot of money to charity. The average American is not going to make that up (nor should they).