But the oddness is also a result of what I believe is a strange strategic move by the Obama administration. Health care reform is a tricky endeavor, and the White House has handled it poorly. And support for needed reform has been horribly uneven. The people who need it most tend to distrust government and vote Republican (or be young and uninterested in the issue), and the people who believe in it most are both largely unaffected by it (the more affluent liberal types) and such reliable Democrats that there is little incentive to woo them
I, for example, fit into several of these categories. I have good insurance, am healthy, and still feel young and invincible. At the same time, I believe in the need for health care reform, and I support most of Obama's statements and plans on the issue. I just don't feel that this needs to be the number one priority for the nation or the administration, and I have a hard time getting fired up about it. And it's been frustrating to see Team Obama, which ran such a focused, efficient, powerful campaign, struggle to get a clear message out persuasively.
It's this sense of frustration then that brings me back to the blog. The summer of political discontent—the lies, the yelling, the threats of violence and succession by right-wing demagogues and their followers—has reached a breaking point for me. I'm sick of the hypocrites and liars calling us out. I'm sick of the attention that's been given to people who are uninformed, loud, and bellicose. And I'm sick of sitting back and watching it all unfold.
Thus begins an occasional series on this blog to counter the logic and arguments of the right. I'm calling it “Reasons Why I'm Not a Conservative and Can't Support Republicans.” I undertake this with great respect and fondness for my conservative friends and relatives. I love and admire many of you, and I have learned and continue to learn much from you. And I aware that very few may ever see this, that some who do see it may be offended, and that I can do very little to change the national political discourse. But I feel a powerful obligation to speak up for what I believe, and this is my chance to do so.
So, here is my basic thesis. I believe that the liberal impulse is a smarter, more moral, and more American approach to governance, ethics, and social justice than the conservative one. It is fairer and more in line with the foundational principles of democracy. In short, it is a better way of conceiving of and operating a society and a system of government. Over the next few days and weeks I will post entries here detailing some of the specific issues that support this thesis. I think it'll be fun.
9 comments:
I'm certainly interested in reading more. But even though I don't identify myself as a Republican, I don't entirely agree with the thesis. I think it paints both liberal and conservative view points with too wide of a brush. There are greater shades of gray than such a statement allows.
Both political orientations can be damaging and unfair when pushed to either extreme.
Since (to me) the current Republican party has shifted further to the right than it was in years past (specifically during the Clinton years), and the Democratic party has shifted more to the center, the current debates seem to really come between the "moderate liberals" and the "conservative extremists."
But I look forward to reading your supporting points.
Roy, you may have a point there if we lived in a country that was a democracy. But we operate under the principles of a republic not a democracy.
I agree with Bill that you've painted your strokes with a very wide brush. But, at the same time, you have a lot of company, because it seems these days both sides of the debate seem to use the same size brush as yours. There are too many people taking sides out of pure loyalty to one side or another without looking at specific issues. I saw this recently when Obama was to speak to the k-12 audience. The conservative side raised all kinds of paranoia instead of listening first.
So bring it on, I'm interested in what you have to say.
Bill, thanks. And the broad brushstrokes are intentional. Nuance seems to be lost in the conversation, and I'm due for some ranting here, so I'm taking a break from thoughtful deliberation.
Scott, I appreciate your critique, but I'm afraid your democracy vs. republic distinction is a non sequitir. And it's a false distinction. The philosophy is that of a democracy, and the implementation is that of a republic. But I am glad you're listening.
I love apologies before polemics. It just adds a certain civility.
"Before I point out the pig-ignorance and sophomoric argumentation of my opponent, I just want to point out that I have the utmost respect for him and consider him a good friend."
I agree with the other commentators on the brush issue. But would add in Roy/David's defense that one must speak the same language in critiquing the current political schism as the schismatic parties use in defining it.
The ability to dialogue would be lost if we were to breakdown individual dogmatic stances. For instance in what category would I be:
Pro-choice (but with limits),
Pro-death penalty (but only occasionally)
Liberal Internationalist,
Pro-free trade,
Pro-immigration,
Pro-business,
Anti-high taxes,
Pro-gun control,
Pro-regulation,
Anti-federal education mandates,
Anti-school prayer....
Oh wait I am a democrat. Never mind and thanks Dave for helping me see the light.
I get it. But the thesis is (allow me to paraphrase), "liberalism = good; conservatism = bad." Obviously, for the sake of debate and/or ranting a side must be taken. And I do relish the anti-Republican ranting (what a bunch of cry babies).
But I believe better government and true equality/fairness takes both a liberal and conservative position. There are conservatives who disagree with the Republican party (ie me). There are liberals who disagree with the Democrats (ie me). Applying such polarized labels to either side makes for a fun debate and juicy ranting, but does nothing for actual progress and change. People become more steeled in their positions.
One of my hopes of an Obama administration was a coming together of both parties. I do blame the Republicans for the partisan brouhaha, but I think it behooves the Democrats to take the higher ground.
Stew, good to have you on board. But I think your comment (and Bill's) are worth a response. I am intentionally avoiding discussions of political party here, because I don't affiliate with either of the major parties. I register independent on purpose. And I definitely want to avoid a partisan discussion. I want this to remain entirely esoteric and impractical in terms of actual policy-making.
That said, Bill, I completely agree with your second comment, and the hardest part of this project is having to be so polarized. It goes against every moderate, compromise-seeking impulse I have as a non-confrontational person. But it's very much the extreme tone I'm shooting for. It's kind of the opposite of my calm, reflective teaching persona and much more of the fly-off-the-handle style that marked my younger years. Maybe it's a weird mid-life crisis...
Then let the ranting begin! :)
"I believe that the liberal impulse is a smarter, more moral, and more American approach to governance, ethics, and social justice than the conservative one."
I can see how you could reach this conclusion, especially given the current extreme conservative messages that are dominating the media. However, I must disagree. That statement is too far reaching. Liberals do not hold a monopoly on moral, ethical or governance superiority. And regardless of what you or I believe, to toss aside the beliefs and wants of the other half of this nation and write them off as inferior ways of thinking is the root cause of the dissolution of discourse that is destroying our ability to work together.
Even if that statement is true for you. I think you are missing some perspective on how differing points of views are not more or less valid... simply different.
In my mind, that statement personifies an intellectual liberal version of the "uninformed, loud, and bellicose" people you lament.
I hope I didn't just ignite a family feud. Us Ellsworths are known for our ability to create grudges. :)
Jon, well said. I wish the conservative voices that dominate much of the current political discourse were half as thoughtful and intelligent. Or that intimations toward subjectivity were more generally included in the discourse. However, I do wish to clarify that I don't think liberalism can stake an exclusive claim to morality, just more of a claim than contemporary conservatism can.
As a side note, I am impressed with the level of discourse I encounter here. To get such well-considered responses--especially from people whose views differ from my own--is refreshing, and restores my faith in humanity.
Post a Comment