Triggering My Conservative Tripwires
In the last two-plus years, I’ve veered hard to the left — or at least what’s defined as “left” in contemporary political jargon. Among other things:
- I’m an avid supporter of embryonic stem-cell research and a middle-of-the-roader on abortion: Full rights to the mother in the first trimester; primary rights to the baby in the second and third trimesters, with the notable exception of threats to the mother’s health and life from carrying the baby to term.
I believe government can and should play a prudent “safety net” role and I’m entirely accepting of an even greater role — and associated spending — in the context of the current economic crisis.
I support civil marriage for committed gay couples.
I think we should move promptly but intelligently to close Gitmo; I appreciate a President who speaks softly and graciously on the international stage, and I don’t believe you can call what the Bush/Cheney administration authorized anything but torture.
While I have substantial faith that markets are generally better at allocating resources than government, I know all too well that the participants in free markets are capable of disastrous decisions and thus need a healthy dose of regulation to prevent great harm.
Confessing these transgressions into leftish territory, I similarly confess my stubborn retention of certain right-leaning principles, namely: fiscal restraint; respect for the rule of law (even when — especially when — it’s inconvenient to “worthy” political ends); and a fair if dynamic level of deference to state’s rights.
While I voted for Obama/Biden in November — and would do so again today, believing they still represent on balance a far superior, studied, reasonable ticket than McCain/Palin — my enthusiasm has been increasingly dented by their wanton disregard (in certain cases) for the conservative principles outlined above. George Will provides today’s case in point.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Triggering My Conservative Tripwires”
ROTFLMAO…
Those positions make you a nice center right Rockefeller Republican, It's unfortunate that the current Republican Party is just a couple of inches to the left of Franco, and if given a chance would give him a run for his money.
Pete,
It’s interesting to see the positions of TMV’s right-wing extremist. I can now see how Joe and a number of his authors think of themselves as “moderates”.
Concerning you points:
• Embryonic stem cell research – You no doubt supported George Bush for being the first President to federally fund ESCR. Although he took a position to fund only existing lines of stem cells, he made no effort to prevent privately funded research on other lines.
• Abortion – The only legislation proposed during full Republican control of the government was a ban on late term partial birth abortion. No apologies for that even from someone like me who is pro-abortion.
• Safety Net – Conservatives believe that there needs to be a social safety net for those who cannot take care of themselves. No one (contrary to liberal thinking) would leave people to starve in the street. However, there is a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative approaches to the problem. Liberal solutions tend to perpetuate and even grow the problem, while conservatives strive to solve the problem. Pick your side.
• Gay marriage – Liberals support it to appear “enlightened” and “tolerant”. Conservatives (as do the majority of Americans) tend to support civil unions so that the social fabric of traditional marriage remains intact. Personally, I don’t give a shit.
• Closing Gitmo – For what reason? Appearances? This is a position that has no basis in reality and one that will soon be in contrast to Barack Obama’s position. There are evil people who need to be locked up for an undetermined amount of time. These are not criminals, they are terrorists. Gitmo was built to house them, has the personnel trained to deal with them and keeps them outside of the U.S. and other countries that don’t want them. A perfect solution.
• Torture – Again, a position forged from liberal cocktail party talk. The majority of Americans would use the same techniques if faced with the same decision as Bush/Cheney. Real torture is something completely different.
• Regulation – Regulation is necessary, but as little as possible. The people who make regulations are never as smart as the people trying to get around the regulations, so its best to rely on market forces to produce the results you are looking for.
Voting for Obama was a natural result of having no conservative alternative to vote for. McCain is a compilation of everything that is wrong with Republican party. When the right becomes the right again, we’ll expect you back.
Since I've never voted for a Democrat or Republican in ANY election (local, state, or national), I find your post interesting Pete. I realized that I was a fiscal conservative a couple years ago (even though I still hold on to the nationwide high speed rail dream but that's another story). But I'm socially liberal and many issues. Yet I'm more in support of civil unions than gay marriage (and if that's twisted into that I hate gay and lesbian folks than I can't talk to ya). And I agree wholeheartedly with jwest's point:
So what am I to do? I don't really have a party these days. The Democratic and Republican Party at large just smell terrible to me (although on an individual basis, I'm cool with many Democrats and Republicans). And I was a Green just to protest the Big 2 (the Greens are just loopy these days).
Strange days…
Right. Most people would torture to save their families, but it wasn't actually torture to begin with so it's even more ok. I guess the battle is between the conservatives, who want to protect America at any cost, and the liberals, who want it to be worth protecting, also at any cost.
Some interesting commentary, but so far no one's addressing the substance of Pete's agreement with George Will.
I feel your pain Pete, on the right-wing sites I'm considered a raging liberal, on the left-wing a raging conservative. I am pro-choice, OK with gay marriage and gays in the military, agree we need to find a way to close Gitmo, but also support fiscal responsibility, etc.
I voted for McCain although I held my nose and considered it a vote for the lesser of two evils. My main concern was Obama would end up following the traditional Democratic principles of excessive spending and he's sure done that. He's also gone one step further and initiated government intrusion into private businesses that are unprecedented in modern times. My feeling is with a centrist president like McCain providing a counter-balance to the Democrats House/Senate we would be in an overall better position than the unopposed Democratic party we have now, although McCain is far from ideal. As far as Palin goes we would have had to pray nightly for McCain's continued good health.
And before anybody jumps in, yes the GOP did a bad job of things during the GWB years, largely due to the lack of opposition the Democrats now enjoy.
Have you no work houses?
Whether dealing with Chrysler’s bondholders on behalf of the UAW or screwing over the citizens of California on behalf of the SEIU, Obama is acting just like the Chicago union thug he is.
Threats, extortion and blackmail are the tactics of unions and the corrupt politicians they own. But laws are meant to be bent and broken by popular politians when the only watchdogs are the enamored press.
Thank you for your thoughts, Pete.
The following issue and question, however, jump right out at me, and I wonder if you can discuss it further:
“I think we should move promptly but intelligently to close Gitmo; I appreciate a President who speaks softly and graciously on the internationa.
l stage, and I don’t believe you can call what the Bush/Cheney administration authorized anything but torture.”
And then,
“Confessing these transgressions into leftish territory, I similarly confess my stubborn retention of certain right-leaning principles, namely: fiscal restraint; respect for the rule of law (even when — especially when — it’s inconvenient to “worthy” political ends); and a fair if dynamic level of deference to state’s rights.”
With respect to the latter, respect (excuse the duplication of the word) for the rule of law, what are your thoughts on holding appropriate Bush officials accountable for violating the rule of law–if in fact, torture is/was unlawful under our laws.
Thanks
Dorian
I'll take a stab at it CStanley. George Will's last paragraph in his piece gets my hackles up somewhat:
I'm all for “freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail”. But what do you do with the collateral damage of the failure: the workers. I hear that echoed from conservatives I know but they get very quiet about the workers. Those workers are a potpourri of political viewpoints. So to just play politics with them is a losing game. With the growing flow of the unemployed (and the little used term “underemployed”) coupled with a consumer-driven economy, how can you NOT just spend? What I hate is HOW this spending is employed. I favor a more direct approach with the American people. If you want to call it welfare that's fine. But we are not cushioning workers enough. No longer can you work hard and honest AND then live out a nice retirement. Now American workers have to adopt a mercenary approach in their working years: get a little here, grab a little there and hope it adds up. No security. So I disagree somewhat with George Will's argument that Obama's policies are over-reaching and has a “tincture of lawlessness”. And I think I disagree with Pete as well since he seems to share that view (am I right Pete?).
What I do believe that the Obama Administration is a disregard with Main Street (notice I didn't wanton disregard because I don't think it's malicious). In a consumer-driven economy, I believe that the consumers can fix the economy. A ground up approach. If an average American received $20k from the government and used it to get out of debt, it gives them financial flexibility and buoys the lenders.
But that isn't happening. So you can't let all “incompetence” just fail with a real cushion for the worker. And telling them to just adjust is flippant. Going from a $20/hour heavy equipment operator full-time job to a $8.50/hour part-time retail job makes the situation worse.
Dorian: On principle, I support “holding appropriate Bush officials accountable for violating the rule of law,” much as I would support (again on principle) holding appropriate Obama officials accountable for violating the rule of law in the instances highlighted by George Will. That said, getting back to your topic, I also believe President Obama is on reasonably sound footing when he hesitates to pursue war-crime investigations. He seems to fear — as do I — that the risk of letting war crimes go unpunished is potentially (with a big emphasis on “potentially”) less severe than the risk of prosecuting them in the current environment.
Tyrone — I don't buy George Will's column wholesale.
Let's focus on the last line of that column: “The administration's central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” I agree with that line in the specific context of the column — i.e., the favoring of certain unions above others, regardless of what the rule-of-law demands. But I don't entirely agree with it, if it's applied to a broader context — i.e., the social collective, our obligations to each other, government's role in facilitating if not requiring said obligations, etc.
In which case, he is wrong. Sooner or later the Republicans will end up in the White House, if there are no consequences for starting wars, kidnapping people in foreign countries and torturing them then they will do it again.
Pete:
I don't necessarily agree that crimes should not be prosecuted and/or go unpunished because of whatever “current environment,” I respect your opinion.
Dorian
P.S.. At the very least, we should get to the truth—wherever that may lead us.
Dorian wrote: “At the very least, we should get to the truth — wherever that may lead us.”
Again, I tend to agree, although I fear “truth” may be unknowable in this instance. Case in point: Cheney keeps talking about the memos that “prove” the techniques he authorized/demanded yielded life-saving intelligence. Let's say Cheney's right about this much: Those documents exist. Next, let's pretend, for just a moment, that those document appear to prove what Cheney claims.
Put aside the “it doesn't matter” argument for just a second, even though I agree it shouldn't matter; we shouldn't torture no matter what. Regardless: How do we know the Cheney-cited documents were honestly prepared, that they were not doctored at the time of their authorship, to “prove” something that's false?
We don't know that. And we can't know that. How much more is there that we cannot and do not know?
That's not to say we shouldn't “at the very least” try to get to the truth, as Dorian suggests. But we need to go into such “trying” with wide-open eyes, accepting the very real possibility that this exercise might prove very frustrating and ultimately fruitless, accomplishing nothing more than hardening the already-formed opinions of both those who are pro-EIT and anti-EIT. And honestly, what good would that do?
Saying all of that, let me also add this: While certain people might believe Andrew Sullivan has become unhinged on the issue, he has produced some of the finest, most relentless posts on this topic, posts that prompt me to consider dragging out the torches and pitchforks and hunting down the culprits. Net: Please don't mistake my hesitancy about digging further — about seeking “the truth” — for equivocation on the core issue of whether or not torture occurred. I'm convinced it did occur. I'm convinced it was criminal. And I do not (under any circumstances) want it to be repeated. Still, I remain UN-convinced that pursuing prevention through a “truth commission” would do any definable, enduring good — despite the fact that I have argued not that long ago in favor of a “truth commission.”
Net: I'm sickened by what happened, but I'm uncertain about next steps.
T_Steel, you said:
I favor a more direct approach with the American people. If you want to call it welfare that's fine. But we are not cushioning workers enough. No longer can you work hard and honest AND then live out a nice retirement.
I don't think I agree with you, but it may be that we have different definitions of “a nice retirement”.
When you say that people can no longer do this, when are you comparing that to?
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
T,
Picking up on PM’s reference to your point on retirement, let me tie this all back to the beginning about the fundamental ideological differences between the parties.
Dems think that Social Security is the government’s money that is doled out as the politicians see fit. Republicans believe this is the individual’s money that shouldn’t have been taken in the first place.
Mandatory individual retirement accounts were proposed not only on principle, but to aid the disadvantaged, especially blacks.
The difference in ownership of the money becomes evident when an African American dies (sooner, on average than whites) with adult children. If the retirement fund is private, this money is passed to the next generation of that family. Perhaps only a few hundred thousand, but a substantial windfall for most. If the retirement fund is government money – as it is with Social Security – the money is gone.
How can people get ahead if there is little chance for an accumulation of wealth?
Democrats want to keep people broke and owing. Keep them relying on the largess of the politicians. Republicans want people independent.
Pete:
Again, what you/we are discussing–getting to the truth, “under the current environment”–is probably one of the most divisive, controversial and difficult issues Americans have faced in a long time.
We can ignore it; we can sweep it under the rug; we can just move on; we can finesse it; we can investigate and prosecute; etc., but in the end, the core issue, of what America is all about; whether we can bend the laws under certain circumstances; whether (and I am grossly paraphrasing here), trading principles for security will result in us ending up with neither; will never go away and will come back to haunt us.
The following words seem so appropriate today:
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
So, let the truth piss us off—Americans have been pissed off before–they can take it.
Dorian
P.S. Pete, thanks for your patience and for a civil discussion
Assuming a an 80 year average life expectancy, assuming retirement at 65 and assuming a 100 people (for the sake of simplicity) if we save for retirement as a group we only need to save for fifteen years of retirement on the other hand if we save individually we have to assume the worse case scenario that we will be the one individual that lives to 100 and therefor have to save for that. So if we save as a group we only need to put aside 15 years worth of savings, but if we save as individuals we need to put aside the max amount possible ( 20, 25, 30 years worth of savings ) because no one knows how long they will live.
So in conclusion you can have a communal system in which 15 years of saving will take care of everyone, or you can have an individual system in which 30 years of savings will not take care of every one.
Polimom: Yes I need to clarify my “nice retirement” remark. What I'm saying is that folks of my parents generation (the baby boomers) were able to put in years at an employer and even if they didn't invest wisely, they still received a pension many times. There was an agreement: you work hard, put in the years, your rewarded. But that doesn't exist as widespread as it used to. The odds of me staying at an employer for 38 years (like my mother and father) is slim to none. The terms of my generation in the IT field is offshoring, outsourcing, merit based wages (with sliding merit scales), etc. It's difficult to get ahead many times unless you save to the bone. My wife and I laugh all the time about working to save not spend. Which is probably a good thing but it sure keeps ya “boxed in”. Clear as mud? LOL
jwest: I can't stand the amount of taxes taken from me. Seriously. YET, in my ideal world, a combination of Republican “independence” and Democratic “dependence” (in times of need) is the solution. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to expand on that. Maybe I'll just post about it later!
T, how about the folks of your grandparents' generation? They survived the great depression and took the lesson that there were no entitlements, that the wolf was constantly at the door.
I mean, it's nicer if we can just all take it easy and nevertheless enjoy a comfortable income, but maybe that's not a sustainable arrangement. Maybe it makes everyone too lazy.
YET, in my ideal world, a combination of Republican “independence” and Democratic “dependence” (in times of need) is the solution. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to expand on that.
This is really the key. The US doesn't have pure capitalism, it has “managed capitalism'. I think most people also agree some plan has to exist to provide for the disabled and disadvantaged. The government also has to set and enforce the ground rules so commerce can function. Then in my opinion they need to stay out of the way, which is where I differ with Obama and most Democrats.
The government stepping in and buying businesses, breaking contracts, etc seems to me to be breaking the ground rules they initially set. Bullying bondholders and providing government assistance to companies that ultimately gives advantages over its competitors (such as Ford, who so far has managed on it's own) is not the proper role of government.
Anyway back to the key point – we aren't arguing about capitalism vs socialism, we're arguing about how far to push one way or the other in that nebulous middle ground.
Dr_J: Your probably right. My grandparents constantly tell me that Americans needs to “suck it up” and get stronger. And I think it's probably better for us in the long run. I don't know how many friends told me my wife and I were fools for not buying a home when we moved to Georgia last year (because of low prices). We decided to rent a home so we can minimize financial impact and to stay flexible/mobile. And I think I'm absorbing more of my grandparents mindset. That being said, we have a growoing amount of Main Street “losers” in this current economy. And I fear what will become of them since America has sold them on the previous route to the American Dream.
DQ- you can accomplish the same thing through investing in annuities, though.
Dorian — And thank YOU, for not letting me off the hook on this issue. We wll need to challenge each other, with open minds.
I say ditto to that, Pete.
Dorian