Constructive gadfly
Published on November 21, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics
I am tired of the dirty label of liberal, linked to the color of pink, just as there are conservatives who are tired of being linked to the Christian right. Liberal to me means an eclectics or cherry picking of New Deal, Socialism — big government where needed. To most conservatives, I think, wish to be perceived in the bright side of Goldwater and Reagan — government with restraint. I do not profess there is little difference here, but the common thread is that those of good will want what’s best for the nation.

Conservatives, to arrive at that goal, primarily trust the self reliance of the individual but where they go wrong is in trusting big business as though it were made of an organization of trusted individuals. Similarly, liberals primarily distrust self reliance when they perceive an uneven playing field; liberals go wrong in trusting big government as though it were made of an organization of trusted individuals to oversee this playing field. Conservatives, true ones, that is, do not need God to officiate; neither do liberals, true ones, that is. This does not imply that the moderate right and left are without religion; on the contrary, both have faith in free will with a little help from basic catechismal precepts, to wit, common decency in the interactive, secular arena. Conservatives do to a degree acknowledge the uneven playing field and support the welfare state when monitored properly, despite unwarranted cries that most on welfare are lazy, irresponsible dirt bags. Liberals, on the other hand, are infamously naive in perceiving, for the most part, the disadvantaged as innocent victims of an uncaring nation structured to preclude opportunity.

It would appear, then, there exists a middle ground: conservatives should give a little in their worship of big business and entrepreneurial activity and the liberals give ground in their worship of big government as the wherewithal. For instance where would the automobile be today had local, state and federal monies not been poured into a road and highway system? Where would government be today without the brilliant inventiveness of big and small business and the taxes generated therefrom? Where would Wal-Mart be? Surely, its arrogance needs taming. Essentially there is nothing wrong with successful companies that play by the rules. In the 30s and 40s Woolworth, the A&P and Sears raised havoc with Mom and Pop stores, but these juggernauts succeeded without the help of China and paying abysmal wages — chances were the “displaced” were paid better and introduced to some fringe-benefits — unheard of at the time — in moving from the independent stores to the chains.

In conclusion, is it possible to explore the common ground and stop tearing ourselves apart?

  Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 21, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Nov 21, 2005
deal.!
on Nov 21, 2005
Right, let's go for it.
on Nov 21, 2005

Excellent!  4 stars!

Now for the bad part.  Us Goldwater/Reagan conservatives accept the votes of the religious right.  But as I am Catholic, I am not welcome in their home.  We do regularly ridicule the RR (just check my blog for proof).  And we know that you exist!  It is just so damn hard to find you.  Of all the liberals on JU, you are the only one that speaks reason, both for and against the left.  That is why I hold you in such high regard.  And do agree with you more than any of the others.

As for Big Business, we do not have a slavish mentality.  Indeed, we feel that the laws exist to nail them when they do wrong!  I see World Con and Enron Execs in jail.  And I am not even Karnac!

And before you say "why did you not stop them before they pilfered".   Remember where Paul Krugman came from (it is not like they were pilfered over night) and who Clinton had to the white house. We are strong advocates of punishing the guilty, not advocating punitive punishment based upon what might happen.

on Nov 21, 2005
And before you say "why did you not stop them before they pilfered".
No, admittedly very hard to do. But at least some regulation--I know a dirty word--could help by locking the barn before the horse is stolen. Thanks for the stars! And to you:
on Nov 21, 2005
No, admittedly very hard to do. But at least some regulation--I know a dirty word--could help by locking the barn before the horse is stolen. Thanks for the stars! And to you:


But that is getting into prescience! Trying to track criminals before they steal? We cant. All we can do is nail them when they do. Anything else is to advocate complete state control, and I will not go that far.

And as for your award! I am deeply honored! 4 Laughs are my highest honor I have ever received!
on Nov 21, 2005
is it possible to explore the common ground and stop tearing ourselves apart?


No, because nobody is going to sit around arguing about similarities.

Dan
on Nov 21, 2005

No, because nobody is going to sit around arguing about similarities.

Oh yea of little faith!

on Nov 21, 2005
In conclusion, is it possible to explore the common ground and stop tearing ourselves apart?


Well, I tend to not have a lot of common ground with the right (especiually the US right). I also don't like compromising my beliefs or censoring myself. But then again, I'm also part of the far left that everyone points to as "those nuts that make (insert center-left person/party here) lose elections." When you refer to capitalism as a system based on exploitation, you don't have a lot of middle ground to explore with the laissez faire folks.
on Nov 21, 2005
the truth is most of the left never fits in any slot much like most of the right.

When I rail against the left {it's only a few in the leadership} I was Republican and still had about 2 feet of hair and a huge manchu mustache, that for sure does not fit into any "picture" of a rightwing kook .

I am writing much less about politics these days, trying to expand my view of not just the left, but to see the right more clearly. Both sides have MORE than its fair share of complete idiots.
on Nov 21, 2005
When you refer to capitalism as a system based on exploitation, you don't have a lot of middle ground to explore with the laissez faire folks.
True, yet recognize that governance too exploits; the point is to get control of exploitation and hopefully the "laissez faire folks" will forgo some of the profit motive for the sake of the good of a nation.
on Nov 22, 2005
No, because nobody is going to sit around arguing about similarities
Ever hear of camaraderie amid honest differences?
on Nov 22, 2005
True, yet recognize that governance too exploits; the point is to get control of exploitation and hopefully the "laissez faire folks" will forgo some of the profit motive for the sake of the good of a nation.


Well, my point wasn't really to start a debate on capitalism, but to say that sometimes there is no middle ground, or to find that middle ground would result in me having to change my beliefs to become more "moderate," or at least censoring myself when I start talking about how I really feel about things. I would rather disagree than censor myself.
on Nov 22, 2005
But that is getting into prescience! Trying to track criminals before they steal? We cant. All we can do is nail them when they do. Anything else is to advocate complete state control, and I will not go that far.


Sounds like Minority Report.
on Nov 22, 2005
Well, my point wasn't really to start a debate on capitalism, but to say that sometimes there is no middle ground, or to find that middle ground would result in me having to change my beliefs to become more "moderate," or at least censoring myself when I start talking about how I really feel about things. I would rather disagree than censor myself.


So you're saying you are not willing to compromise? It's your way or the highway? How are we ever gonna see a better future when we are not willing to give a little?

It almost sounds impossible, but the point is it's not about you or me, it's about everyone, it's to make it better for everyone and sometimes compromises must be done in order to achieve that goal. Remember, just because you believe something is right doesn't always mean it's right.
on Nov 23, 2005
So you're saying you are not willing to compromise? It's your way or the highway? How are we ever gonna see a better future when we are not willing to give a little?
Support is so comforting--thanks!