Sure. Most conservatives I know who talk of ending Medicare or social security, or getting rid of the minimum wage, etc., talk of the role of charity in helping the less fortunate. Yet charity, despite the many who give of their time and money, has never been sufficient to provide a social safety net for our poor and elderly. Unemployment benefits and Medicare have. I think you get to a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Empirically, no matter how much of my time I give to charity, I don't mind paying more in (forced) taxation if I think it goes to a good cause, because I know it is a shared sacrifice that works. That's why, I think, most liberals perceive "1000 points of light" and the like with such derision and scorn. We see it as a cynical ploy to rationalize ignoring the problem. It is probably well-intentioned, but based on the history of poverty we don't believe voluntary measures actually can work. The whole of our society didn't voluntarily accept desegregation, wheelchair ramps, maternity leave, voting rights of adults regardless of age/race, universal health care. They have all (save one) been mandated; we liberals believe we needed those mandates. And Ted Kennedy, in many instances, led the fight to pass them. Agreed. Besides Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy had to live up to the memories of three perceived martyrs. It was impossible. Also, Ted Kennedy was demonstrably more liberal, in his policies if not his rhetoric, than JFK (and to a lesser extent RFK). For many years he was one of the only few truly liberal US senators, and (probably because of his brothers' name and his own reputation, which are inextricably linked) was the liberal ideology's standard bearer.
Medicare for the elderly is essential. Not to mention the fact that Medicare and Social Security are paid into by the recipients their entire careers. I, as a conservative, have no issue with these programs. That is called a genuine point of disagreement. It is not necessary that one side be good and the other evil. It is possible for people to disagree with both sides having good motives.
Yes; I don't doubt your motives. The problem of another's motivation is impossible to discern, especially politicians'. I think universal health care is another of those rights that everyone should be entitled to, that a Medicare-for-all type program should be something that everyone similarly pays into, but I understand that not all feel that way. BTW, Ted Kennedy is the one who called for a "Medicare for All" type healthcare program. Many today argue that such a simple message proposal would have an easier time passing than the many out there drawing fire. An excerpt from one of Ted Kennedy's "Medicare for All" speeches, from back in 2005 (a time when not enough were championing the cause): However, we liberals found it suspicious when Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan came up with "1,000 points of light" for Reagan's VP, when their former boss was the guy who built his career opposing Medicare and social security, part of the "failed campaign that delayed Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s." <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U_WUUhtvdFo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U_WUUhtvdFo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Republicans lost that fight, and some of them (the Club for Growth wing) are still fighting against it, tooth and nail. (For example, see GWB's proposed social security cuts, barely defeated a few years ago; Ted Kennedy was instrumental in holding the line on that one.) They want to "drown it in the bathtub," so to speak. That's why we get mighty suspicious when, for example, RNC head Michael Steele talks about the importance of saving Medicare for our seniors as a talking point in the current healthcare debate, when two breaths ago he was talking about the necessity of cutting it drastically. <embed src="http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=112281170&m=112281154&t=audio" height="383" wmode="opaque" width="400" base="http://www.npr.org"></embed> Thanks, but were you referring to the Rodan pic or the other? Cause I really put all the thought and effort into that Rodan pic.
I personally think we could fix the healthcare system by requiring members of Congress to be stuck with whatever healthcare system the rest of us have. If that ever got enacted, I promise you, the system would be completely overhauled in record time. It is easy to come up with a crappy plan when it is a plan for other people (ie not you).
That is true. However, in the example we're talking about (and others), having good motives does not mean the two approaches to the problem are equal. Private charity is never going to be enough to support all Americans in need. That is an empirical fact. Also, it seems to me (particularly after attending Senator Wyden's town hall meeting this week) that the people who espouse charity as an answer to our society's ills (and are mightily against any governmental approach) are some of the least generous and most selfish people around. Thus, we Libs look with cynicism upon any justification presented by Cons to ignore those in need, particularly if it can be presented under the guise of "good motives."
I have no problem with that, with demands for enacting such a pledge. Though, as members of the House and Senate are among the most homogeneously privileged populations imaginable: largely obscenely wealthy, white, former lawyer, male & upper class, I know that most politicians will continue to lead lives of luxury whether health reform passes or not. What I think is important, as regards Ted Kennedy, is that he was willing to put his (considerable) backside on the line trying to drum up support for improving the lives of those who do not live such gilded lives, who were not born with silver spoons. He represented the best possible aspect of the outdated (and in many ways abysmal) concept of the "noblesse oblige." Said of George HW Bush: "He was born on third base, and thought he hit a triple." Ted Kennedy was born halfway between third and home, and in his personal life he no doubt enjoyed suh privilege. Yet politically, Kennedy did everything he could to cheerlead / steal the signs, so that everyone else on his team, so that everyone else in the stadium, so that everyone else who couldn't afford a ticket, could get a hit.
I have not questioned whether Kennedy had a sense of fairness. I am very sure that he did and that he loved our nation. I am merely stating the obvious...that if legislators had to have the same healthcare system as everybody else, it would get fixed and everybody would be better off.
Wait. I thought you were for choice. If everyone has the same system, does that mean you're in favor of single-payer public option?
So basically, the "my side is good and your side is evil" argument? I'm not going to get in depth about policies, etc. - but could you admit the possibility that 2 people who might both be good and smart actually have differing opinions on public policy?
No. To be more accurate, Congress should have the same choices available. right now, Congress has no reason to enact reasonable regulations for healthcare products because they themselves do not have to live with their actions. They have far and away the best healthcare of anybody in the country.
I just got back from Boston, I wasn't there for Ted Kennedy's funeral, and it is pretty incredible the impact that his death is having. It is dominating eht local news and also a lot of the conversation you hear on the streets. When I was flying out today our flight was delayed to let some VIP traffic out. I even flew on the same flight with Sen. Arlen Spector. I said hello to him in the terminal and he said he was flying back from Kennedy's funeral. He ended up sitting a few seats behind me. I was impressed to see a US Senator of Spector's stature not just flying on a commercial flight but also sitting in coach. He was even nice enough to allow my business partner whow was sitting behind him to get out first at Philadelphia so we could make our connecting flight.
But by that logic, doesn't that mean meaningful health reforms will never get done? Congress members already have money, and they therefore already have the best healthcare money can buy, and yet the current system is screwed up six ways from Sunday. Those without money can't afford soaring medical costs and insurance rates, and even those with insurance can have it revoked based on the whims (and ledgers) of insurance penny-pinchers. How is holding out for their rhetorical (and largely meaningless) pledge to all choose the public option (though many will vote against it) going to do the rest of us any good, when we're stuck with the way things are right now? We don't ask that Congress go on food stamps, yet we ask that they provide them for those in need. We don't ask that Congress actually dig the ditches and pour the cement, but we still want them to fund the federal highway system. We don't ask Congress to get pass their GEDs in prison, but it's a good idea if the incarcerated can come out of jail and not feed the rest of us value meals filled with rat poison. Obama jokes that he has an ever-present doctor at his beck and call 24/7, who has an office in the White House, and carries liters of his blood type wherever he goes. His healthcare needs will not suffer, if no reforms are passed. I don't see how the distinction you make will actually bring about desired reforms in healthcare, given that right now the system is so thoroughly screwed. Demanding that 500-plus people adhere to a public option as a condition for health care reform doesn't make much sense to me, especially to the 47 million out there who right now have no such option. The ruling class have it made; that's why they're the ruling class. They'll have it made after the end of this healthcare debate, whether they decide to vote for it or not. And hopefully enough, like Ted Kennedy, will get off their posteriors and move to fix it. This gives me chills: <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LhYtMmw9OVk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LhYtMmw9OVk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Somebody on MSNBC, I think, claimed that 178 million Americans, out of roughly 300 million, have lived their entire lives with Ted Kennedy in the Senate. His role in the Senate, for us, has just been taken as a given. Awesome. Golden opportunity missed, sishir. How awesome would it have been for you or your business partner to just sit there for the entire 3 hour (?) flight, heckling Specter over and over again, "One day, God's going to stand before you! And he's going to judge you, and the rest of your damned cronies up on the hill! And then you'll get your just desserts!" Then see how long Specter would continue to talk up the wonders of open democracy. Spoiler <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rytLJWaJff8&hl=en&fs=1&start=59"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rytLJWaJff8&hl=en&fs=1&start=59" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Just by making one plane flight uncomfortable for him (and yourself, and anybody else in coach), you'd be fulfilling your patriotic duty: Specter would have been sure to solidify his opinion and vote for a public option. Screw the Democratic primary coming up, he'd be forced to simply out of spite.
For a bunch of hard-asses, you guys are really thin-skinned. Reminds me of The Jazz -- throwing elbows on one end and flopping and crying on the other. I was directly answering your question as to why liberals would appreciate a privileged family like the Kennedy's and not one like the Bushes. The answer you ignored in favor of whining was that while the Kennedy's were privileged, they employed that privilege to help people who aren't. The Bushes did not. They employed their privilege to help other privileged people. You can complain that this equals a good vs. evil thing, but it's just the facts.
That's not the kind of insult that should be thrown around lightly. That may be one of the worst I've seen on these boards. It's OK to be up in arms about things, but to compare someone to the Jazz? That might be going too far.
Really read what you posted. I mean, give it a good read, and come back and tell me how you weren't saying that one side was good and the other was evil. It is essentially what you said and was not at all ambiguous.
Check out how far we've come in the last 40 years. (There's a lot of feedback on the video; didn't see a better version.) <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iGKkPEvD2OM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iGKkPEvD2OM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Dick "History's Greatest Monster" Nixon selling a broad reform, a national health care plan. Ted Kennedy arguing for a near-universal health care plan. And the unions wanting want unions always want: the real deal, no compromises. And of course, in the end, nothing got done. (In addition to the personal tragedy, this is the national tragedy of Chappaquiddick. Had Kennedy been in office for Nixon's second term, the health care debate we are having right now would have been settled 35 years ago.) What strikes me first is how awesome Daniel Schorr always sounds. Then, how the crude news telecast of the day actually sifted through the numbers, and succinctly tells the viewer the broad outlines of what each plan covered. None of the "He said / she said," "Well, George (even though we haven't talked about what's actually in the proposals), how much of Obama's approval rating decline is tied to his health care message? Is the honeymoon over, etc." Up next, more stories on the White House puppy."
That's fair enough, I guess. The facts are straight, but my bias is clear. It is true: I believe that helping people who are less fortunate is good. And I believe that spending capital to instead help rich people, to the clear detriment of the less fortunate, is sort of evil. Busted. You got me.
