Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Retraction. Because I shouldn't have the luxury of editing what I've said in the past, I want to point out that my "Mythical Leftists" post unfairly started with something of a smear towards the Right.  As my good friend Steve points out, correctly, it had no place in this dialog.  I apologize for that; particularly because Steve is on the Right, and is one hell of a good writer himself.  My frustration had no place in that article.  I decided to strike out that portion, but leave it in to remind myself not to do it again, in that context. Steve's written on the piece as well. 8:23:29 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Scott Harris Responds. Scott has kindly responded to me, and at his request I am publishing his well-reasoned response below, interleaved with my note.   Scott's commentary is italicized; my original document is in plaintext, indented. Ross, Thanks for taking the time to present a counter argument to my statement. I have interspersed comments below which better explain my position, and I hope you will be kind enough to post my response to your comments. Having done that, I also want to say this: My family was firmly in the Democratic Party up until the 1972 election. Although from the South, it was not the Civil Rights movement that drove us to the other side of the aisle. It was the cowardice and anti-American hatred of the new left in the early 70's. This change was hardened by Roe v. Wade. While on a religious level, my family found this decision horrid, on a political level, we believe that the issue of abortion was better solved on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis in a legislative context. Scott : I am pleased to find a right-winger who can actually spell, can correctly construct sentences, and who actually takes the time to lay out his arguments and beliefs. Well done, sir. That being said, I respectfully disagree. The single most common thing done by almost all essayists on the right is to construct some entirely mythical "leftist", who more or less is an anti-religion, godless, business-hating, state-loving, valueless, welfare king or queen. It just isn't so. The very vast majority of commenters on this blog (and most Democrat-leaning voters, for that matter) are people who do NOT trust government very much, and do not want it to intrude into their lives very much. It is difficult to contruct an argument against a position without making some generalizations about your opponents position. I realize that the views of left and right are not binary; rather, they exist on a continuum. It might surprise many on the left and right how much we have in common. There are fundamental values differerences, but even when we do agree, it seems difficult to solve the issue of establishing priorities. This is why we don't like things like the Patriot Act. This would fall under the category of choosing the lesser of two evils. There are many on the right who are very suspicious of the Patriot Act. But it is dishonest to assert this is a right wing power grab. It is more a governmental bureaucracy power grab and would have passed just as easily under a Democratic administration, and be enforced with just as much vigor under a Democratic President as well. This is an prime example of government bureaucracy using crisis to obtain and consolidate power. I wonder how many on the left would be honest enough to admit that they would be slower to condemn the administration if it was Democratic rather than Republican even if the actual enforcement actions were identical. I know I personally would give a Democratic President some slack here, but I also will acknowledge that I know some fellow right wingers who wouldn't. Most of us feel, like you, that government should just pretty much get the hell out of our lives. What you and I disagree on is those areas where government should play a role. I agree in part with your assertion, but I would add the issue of Federalism to this conversation. There are many things I would support on a local level that I think the Federal government has no business in. I would argue that local jurisdictions should have more power to define what I'll call "Societal Standards" than the Federal government. Prior to the Warren court, this was the rule, not the exception. This concept of local control created a pluralistic society where some things (like gun control) might be tolerated in some jurisdictions, but not others. This is acceptable to me. But what has happened is that when some leftward arguments proved unpersuasive to the masses, the left found a receptive ear in the unelected judiciary. They bypassed the deliberative political process of building consensus, and acquiring support for legislative change and took the less strenuous path of judicial fiat. They simultaneously showed no respect for the law (riots, protests, etc.) and took advantage of the majority's moral code of honoring the law by using the courts to impose or invalidate laws willy-nilly without subjecting those changes to popular judgement. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment has been wholly abused by the court system to violate local standards and impose a rigid national moral code. And those on the left refuse to acknowledge that they are imposing their own brand of morality on the Society. They have replaced pluralism with multiculturalism. Pluralism allows for local society to play a role in determining standards and causes a plethora of moral choices. If you disagree, you can form your own local society of like minded people and we all can exist together on the points where we do agree. Multi-culturalism divides people along the artificial lines of race and heritage, and establishes these differences as opposing political camps competing in a zero-sum game for a finite pool of resources. A lot of people on your team think that the government belongs in a person's bedroom. Most of us think that's wrong. Very few of us really believe that religion should be completely banished from public forums. We do believe that symbols of a particular religion should not be prominently displayed in our common grounds, which should be secular. It would be helpful if you were able to recognize that in many circumstances, prosecuting the tenets of one's religion may not be entirely appropriate. If your direct supervisor is Muslim, should he be able to continuously attempt to convert you? Perhaps. Should he be able to implicitly tie your promotion to said attempt? I think not, and I suspect you agree. In fact, there is probably a great deal that we agree on. I would argue that this happens silently anyway, and it is almost impossible to eradicate. People will form associations with others they agree with, and will tend to be more comfortable with said people. This is why Hollywood and the national media find so few members of the religious right in their midst. The prevailing value sets in these two industries are at odds with the value system of the religious right and two things happen. 1) Those right wingers who do work in these industries find themselves effectively ostracized, and 2) those who may have chosen to enter these industries in a more welcoming environment opt-out for other fields where they find people with whom they have more commonality. Its easy for those on the left to raise the artificial spector of religious oppression - like the Robert Duvall movie "A Handmaid's Tale" - but they will not acknowledge the fact that they treat those who hold deep religious beliefs as if they have some mental disease. Just in the recent Alabama Ten Commandments flap (which I personally found ridiculous), there was serious consideration on the left to trying to declare the judge unfit for office on the grounds of mental instability. I personally agree that he is a demagogue, but if Al Sharpton can run for President, how can you find Judge Roy Moore mentally insane? The other thing this reveals is a total lack of understanding of the actual beliefs of those on the religious right. I will readily acknowledge that some religious wackos exist on the right. But the vast portion of those who style themselve that way find their religious heritage in Protestant Evangelical tradition specifically against central control of religion. The history of throwing off central control of the Pope, and the history of coming to America to practice religious freedom flies in the face of those who solemnly declare that any expression of religious symbols in the public square is equal to establishing a state religion. This is foolishness. We probably agree that a free market society is a damn good thing to have. We agree that this is one of the better countries in the world to live in (although we might disagree on how it can be improved). Let me take on a few of your points. First, the "modern left idea of banishing religion from the public forum". Once again, I have trouble figuring out who you're talking about. You embed a lot of codewords into your sentences -- "modern", "left", and "banish". I am sure that you believe, as I do, that it is absolutely correct and right for good men and women to freely associate and advance their religion. But if we move into a classroom setting, with a group of young children, do you also feel that it is right for the entire class, save one or two children, to be led in prayer by a teacher? I think it is not right. Does the prayer truly reflect an appropriate religious choice for each child, and for the parents? What about children who know they do not wish to participate, but feel ostracized? The reason that most of us on the "left" believe that religion should have a minimal role (not "be banished") in public life is that we fundamentally believe that religion is _private_, and should stay that way. Religion should not be a _requirement_ to participate in public life. We achieve this by setting an example, by minimizing the role of religion in our public institutions. If John Ashcroft leads prayer groups in his office and ALL of his senior staff are participants, do you feel that has maintained an appropriate distinction between church and state? Perhaps you do. The real issue in the school system is control. If the State is to control the public education system, then I agree with you. But... The right to inculcate our personal value sytems in our own children in the process of overall education, and the right to shield our children from being taught values we oppose should be a fundamental right of parents. So the local public school should be in the control of the local parents. The Federalization of the public school system is a national crime. Almost all funds collected to build and operate local schools are locally collected. The attempt by the left - in the form of the educational bureaucracy and the teachers unions - to wrench control of what and how our children are taught is a violation of the individual rights of each member of society to control the upbringing of their children. This goes back to the argument that Thomas Paine made of Society vs. Government. Society is a force for good. Government is a force to restrain evil. Government is given coercive power in order to enable it to accomplish its mission - security. When you marry coercive power with Society goals, you get a recipe for disaster. A local government vs. a cental federal government is more responsive to the local society. Government control, by necessity must seek the lowest common denominator to ensure "fairness." If, as a local society, we see the value in universal education, and decide to pool our resources to provide that education, then steps must be taken to ensure the primacy of parental prerogative. This can be accomplished in the current environment by making the funding of education portable, and placing the decision on location and type of education in the hands of the parents. To Social Engineers, this proposal could have multiple good effects: 1) It would create options for those trapped in underperforming schools 2) It would cause the parents to be fully engaged in the education of their children - the lack of such involvement being the number one cited reason for student failure. 3) It would eradicate the need for dubious practices like social promotion, and put the onus on the parents to either acknowledge the basic lack of intelligence in their child and find appropriate means to overcome that lack, or cause them to seek a better educational environment for children who are not being properly served by the educational system in which they find themselves. 4) It would create incentives to reward excellence in the field of professional education, resulting in a skyrocketing of salaries for teachers, and create incentives for talented individuals currently outside the field to join the educational system. It would also help rid the system of lazy, underperforming teachers and bureaucrats. 5) The current system is biased toward a particular skill set. Alternative schools could be created whose function would better fit the skills of underperforming students. So for example, a young boy with excellent coordination skills, but rudimentary academic skills could be enrolled in a school which valued his skills. Basic fundamental lessons would still be taught, but other skills could also be developed simultaneously. This has a corollary benefit of destroying the status of certain academic professions that like to elevate themselves to a higher status on the sole basis of mental dexterity. 6) Special schools specifically designed to meet the needs of specific needs challenged children could be created and funded at a higher level based on some objective criteria. 7) Sex specific schools could be created without running afoul of the equal protection clause. Separate and unequal would not be an issue because the desire of parents to create the best possible future for their children would create a brutal atmosphere of accountability for those schools and teachers who failed to measure up. 8) Prayer, religious instruction, morality, etc. would cease to be divisive issues. Moral instruction or the lack thereof would be totally controlled by the parents. 9) Special schools for the gifted could be created allowing prodigies in all fields to get a head start on learning. The creative minds of the young could be harnessed to a purpose when their creativity is at its peak. These special schools would eventually be established in virtually every field of human endeavor. Parents would be required to pay closer attention to the interest and skills of each of their children and design an educational experience ideally suited to achieve the greatest possible rewards for their child and by extension, the society at large. 10) Other schools specializing in specific subjects, such as chemistry, could be created as "subcontractor schools" which serve as central facilities accessed by other "general educational" schools for subjects which require special training and equipment. This could lead to greater efficiency in the system obviating the need for duplicate facilities that go unused the majority of the time. 11) Low wage mothers of young children could be taught how to effectively home school their children and this educational stipend would allow them to stay home with their children without being labelled "welfare queens." This might reduce the pool of available employees, which would simultaneously reduce unemployment, drive up wages, and reduce welfare roles by employing mothers in a beneficial role of primary education. These mothers, once their children grew older, could form a pool of experienced teachers from which to draw professional educators in traditional schools. 12) The creativity of educators, parents and children will be set loose to create a hundred, a thousand other variations of educational experience that one can only imagine now. This proposal assumes that you trust the parents to have the best interest of their children at heart and act appropriately. Of course, you would find some students that are ill-served by this system, but the current system is no better. Overall, I trust interested parents to guard the welfare and quality of their children more than disinterested educational bureaucrats. If you believe this is a recipe for disaster, then I dare you to go back 100 years and take some of the tests given to 8th graders when education was controlled primarily by parents. I'll bet you couldn't pass them. The fear on the left that this would result in government funding of religion is absurd. I can teach my children religion. I understandably don't want the school contradicting me when I teach my values. But the overriding goal of parents is and will be to give their children the best possible educational experience to prepare them for life. If this can be accomplished in a parochial school, then who cares. But if a parochial schools begins to lag behind, you can bet the farm that the vast majority of parents will abandon that school faster than a cock roach runs from the light. "Others on the modern left recognize no higher authority than the individual." As far as authority goes, we can recognize the individual, the state, or God. You seem to feel that God is the only acceptable answer to "higher authority". I'm inclined to side with you on that one, but I will absolutely defend the right of someone else to make a different choice. And while you and I might agree on the authority of God, we would not likely agree on religion, which I fairly firmly believe has nothing to do with God. I would caution you to separate your arguments into two components: Belief in God, and belief in Religion. They are enormously distinct. Trying to distinguish between God and religion is a game of semantics. It depends on your personal definition. The point was that the founding fathers explicitly based their right to defy government on the design of a Creator. This belief in a Creator and individual rights given by such a Creator was a fundamental value in America. It has been rejected by the new left. You can argue that this is a good thing or not, but the fact remains that things have changed. "And insofar as the modern left does acknowledge mankind's shortcomings, they see government as a tool to perfect mankind". I think you and I would both agree that the optimal role for government is to damp down the most destructive aspects of individualism, and provide a mechanism for achieving certain limited goals related to the common good. We can trot out the usuals here -- defense, trade, and so forth. There's plenty of agreement there. Us lefties like to add the environment to the list, because we really, truly believe that there are some very scary things that could happen to ALL of us if we aren't very careful. And you know what? I'll freely admit that we really don't know whether the environment is truly getting screwed over. Most of us have had the realization, though, that we just don't want to take the chance. The stakes are too high. Individuals and corporations (and governments, for that matter), will often do things that are very damaging to society as a whole. There's a river near where I grew up -- one that's been used as a channel for boats, for a long time (a century or more). There's a guy on that river who's a golf player. He decided that he wanted the golf hole on his property to be a little bigger, so he had a few hundred truckloads of earth dumped into the river, extending his property. His new golf hole went almost three quarters of the way across the river, effectively blocking the channel. Are these the kind of property rights that you want to defend? Probably not. The thing is, we (lefties again) interpret some property owner's actions as destructive to the commons. But that's a very long argument in itself. There are many on the right who also acknowledge a responsibility to safeguard the environment, and are appreciative of those who diligently watch for deterioration caused by the selfishness of mankind. But there are some on the left who worship the environment and elevate environmental "integrity" above the welfare of society. An example is the whole ANWAR debate. Alaska is huge. And because of its harsh climate, there is no danger of its vast open spaces being overrun by man. To suggest that a few oil wells in an area 1/3 the size of the continental USA is going to destroy the environment is not reasonable. Preserving the "pristine quality" of ANWAR is not a rational position - it is a religious one. It is based on the idea that man's presence spoils the natural order of nature, as if we somehow exist outside of nature. And it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the triumphs of the environmental movement and the constructive effects it has had on how corporations operate. Finally, it refuses to acknowledge the adaptability of nature. I would add OSHA, the FDA, and other regulatory agencies that safeguard our health and welfare as desirable and necessary for a modern society. "we see the values that were cast off: individual accountability, the recognition of the evilness of mankind, the definition of government as a necessary evil, the idea that government powers are derived from the people." Neither you nor I believe in absolute individual accountability. It is foolish of you to pretend that you do. You and I are both highly dependent on the society we live in, for education, for medical care, and for our livelihoods. To pretend that you are solely responsible for every event in your life simply makes no sense. Some times bad things really do happen to good people. Some times bad things happen to bad people. What we lefties would like to see is some minimal safety net out there, something that can help out when things get to their worst. You believe in the same thing, but you call it a Church and a Community. We think there is a role for a secular government to play in this regard. Thomas Paine goes to great lengths to discuss the desirability of Society - where we rely on each other for our mutual benefit. Also, having been raised in a family that voted for FDR, Truman, Adlai Stevenson, JFK, LBJ and Hubert Humphrey, I do not disagree that a basic societal security net is desirable. I personally believe the Social Security system has encouraged entreprenurialism and risk taking precisely because it provides a safety net in case of failure. I refuse to recognize mankind as fundamentally evil. This is a value judgement that you make, one that stems directly from your personal religion. It has no place in our shared value set. Again, this was a concept accepted by the founders and a belief held by the majority of society. Again, you can argue the desirability of this change, but you cannot reasonably deny that a change has taken place. I do not define government as a necessary evil, and you don't either. Combining "necessary" with "evil" is simple wordplay so you can feel good as you finger-point at aspects of government you don't like. It's a complex process. It's necessary, and it's also not evil. Would you describe the Bush Administration as "evil"? I suspect not. I don't either. The key in my mind is to adopt the attitude of trying to do as little as possible to adequately protect ourselves and society so we don't unnecessarily inhibit our freedoms. I specifically am NOT a Libertarian. I think there are some things government does better than private entities. For this reason, I am very suspicious of public utility deregulation, and absolutely oppose the privatization of the highway system. And as far as powers being derived from the people, please try and find one serious person on the left (or middle, or right) who doesn't believe that should be the case. As long as we're on the subject of values, let me tell you what I think matters: Freedom. A large intellectual commons. The right to be let alone. Fiscal sanity. Honesty. Tolerance. Any of these things ring with you? I bet they do. Lastly, you state that "if you are a typical leftist, you see the government as a tool to accomplish whatever your ideas of good are". Government action is a consensus, achieved by all of us, on every part of the spectrum. In this manner we attempt to find a path, to use the powers of government for sensible ends. The Administration is very vigorously using the "coercive power of government" to accomplish its "ideas of good", at the moment. Government should also make use of its power in moderation, which is something you seem to agree with. Most of us on the left feel that moderation has left the building, and won't be back for a while. There's a big spectrum of thought out there on the right, and I try recognize that. You're a "Religious Values" conservative, and at least you're honest (see my values above) and open about why you think the way you do. I hope you can respect the fact that a short list of fundamental values can differ between two reasonable persons, in this country. And there is no higher value than this: This country was intended to be the best place on Earth for persons of differing values to coexist. The sum of our values drives the direction and governance of this country. The primary concern of the religious right is a runaway judiciary which, as my comments stated, acknowledges no accountability, and imposes its own perception of right on the country at large, leaving no room for variation. We feel like we have been assaulted and continue to be assaulted, and when we resist that assualt, we are accused of being the aggressor. For example, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion would not be outlawed in the USA. There are too many who want that option available. But right now, we cannot argue our case in the public forum. The imposition of the judiciary in this issue polarized it. Only the extreme fanatics on either side get any hearing. The left is correct is assuming that the voices they hear on the right concerning this issue want abortion totally outlawed. What they are missing is that there are many on the right who are not so ready to label these women as murderers, and who have very nuanced views on the subject. These nuanced views ceased to matter the moment Roe v. Wade was decided. What we on the right do agree on is this: We want the courts to go back to adjudicating the law, not creating it. And we want to roll back the laws they created by judicial fiat. Yes, there are some noisy loud citizens on the hard right who wish to impose their own beliefs using the example set by the hard left - judicial fait accompli. But the majority of us just want the opportunity to make our case in the proper political forum without being silenced by unelected judges. Once this occures, then we can muzzle the extremists and begin to have a reasonable conversation. 8:18:14 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Mythical Leftists. CalPundit's interview with Paul Krugman has generated a lot of debate (well, some of it is debate).  Scott Harris wrote this, and I felt like responding. The concept that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed is fundamental to America. But what is even more fundamental was the justification given for this idea. The phrase "all men are created equal" is easy to prove wrong. I do not have the skill of Michael Jordan, or the wealth of Bill Gates progeny. The point of this statement is that we are all equal before God and that our authority is derived from him - "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..." The founders based their right to cast off the authority of England on the premise that each man is individually and directly accountable to God. Governments derive their authority from men who derive their authority from God. The key nugget of the American idea is that it was not so important to the founders what particular God you personally felt the need to be accountable to, but that the right to cast off the English authority was given by a higher power that each individual was accountable to, and that accountability was direct. This idea is in direct conflict with the modern left idea of banishing religion from the public forum. The founders - and a great many modern day Americans - believe that the morality imposed by religion is healthy in so far as it requires a personal responsibility of the individual to give an account for his actions. The point of the first amendment is not so much to erect a wall between church and state as to ensure that government would not try (as in the case of theocracy and monarchy) to place itself between a man and his God. Yet this is exactly what modern leftists attempt. They demand that any public discourse be barren of religious influence, and a public man must denounce his fealty to his God, and give it rather to the State. For some on the modern left, they recognizes no higher authority than the State itself. These do not say, "The constitution prohibits the government;" they say, "The constitution gives us the right to..." But this construct is openly denounced by the founders. The government does not have the power or the authority to give us anything. Rather, they say that Governments are instituted amoung men to SECURE the rights that are GIVEN by God. Others on the modern left recognize no higher authority than the individual. These are the amoral anarchists who refuse to be held accountable for any act, and by extension, do not recognize the general society judgement. The second quotation, from Thomas Paine, defines 1) the difference between Society and Government, and 2) the purpose of Government - Security. Implicit in Paine's justification for government is the idea that 1) unfortunately, men are evil, 2) Government is insituted among men to protect the larger society from the evil of individual men who refuse to be held accountable to their conscience, and 3) men voluntarily form governments and give a part of their wealth for the express purpose of protecting the greater portion of their wealth and their general well being from the individual evil of other men. The modern leftist, far from seeing government as a force to moderate the evil of men, refuses to even acknowledge good and evil as objective qualities. And insofar as the modern left does acknowledge mankind's shortcomings, they see government as a tool to perfect mankind. Paine, on the other hand asserts that government is "at best, a necessary evil." And he provides the logic for the phrase "the government which governs best is that one which governs least." Also, Paine describes government as a uniformly negative requirement, and defines Society as that coming together of individuals for mutual benefit. Modern leftists confuse Society and government and therefore see government not as a necessary cost, but as a tool to accomplish their goals of reshaping the world according to their own agenda. So, we see the values that were cast off: individual accountability, the recognition of the evilness of mankind, the definition of government as a necessary evil, the idea that government powers are derived from the people. And we see the modern leftists replacements, state accountability for personal failings, the elevation of the State to the position of God - that is, the giver of rights, the rejection of God and the concept of higher authority, seeing mankind as perfectable, seeing government as the instrument to achieve that perfect status, the elevation of rights without the corresponding recognition of responsibilities, the merging of sometimes worthwhile Society goals with the coercive power of government. This is my answer David. I have visited your website, and I know you don't believe in God. But the more important issue is whether you recognize a higher authority than the individual or the State. And if you are a typical leftist, you see the government as a tool to accomplish whatever your ideas of good are, rather than a necessary evil to be limited to only the most basic duties that will ensure individual liberty and freedom. And if you are a typical leftist, you want to use the coercive power of government to trump the values of Socitey. Scott : I am pleased to find a right-winger who can actually spell, can correctly construct sentences, and who actually takes the time to lay out his arguments and beliefs.  Well done, sir.  That being said, I respectfully disagree. The single most common thing done by almost all essayists on the right is to construct some entirely mythical "leftist", who more or less is an anti-religion, godless, business-hating, state-loving, valueless, welfare king or queen.  It just isn't so.  The very vast majority of commenters on this blog (and most Democrat-leaning voters, for that matter) are people who do NOT trust government very much, and do not want it to intrude into their lives very much. This is why we don't like things like the Patriot Act. Most of us feel, like you, that government should just pretty much get the hell out of our lives.  What you and I disagree on is those areas where government should play a role.  A lot of people on your team think that the government belongs in a person's bedroom.  Most of us think that's wrong. Very few of us really believe that religion should be completely banished from public forums.  We do believe that symbols of a particular religion should not be prominently displayed in our common grounds, which should be secular.  It would be helpful if you were able to recognize that in many circumstances, prosecuting the tenets of one's religion may not be entirely appropriate.  If your direct supervisor is Muslim, should he be able to continuously attempt to convert you?  Perhaps.  Should he be able to implicitly tie your promotion to said attempt?  I think not, and I suspect you agree.  In fact, there is probably a great deal that we agree on. We probably agree that a free market society is a damn good thing to have.  We agree that this is one of the better countries in the world to live in (although we might disagree on how it can be improved).  Let me take on a few of your points.  First, the "modern left idea of banishing religion from the public forum".  Once again, I have trouble figuring out who you're talking about.  You embed a lot of codewords into your sentences -- "modern", "left", and "banish".  I am sure that you believe, as I do, that it is absolutely correct and right for good men and women to freely associate and advance their religion.  But if we move into a classroom setting, with a group of young children, do you also feel that it is right for the entire class, save one or two children, to be led in prayer by a teacher?  I think it is not right.  Does the prayer truly reflect an appropriate religious choice for each child, and for the parents?  What about children who know they do not wish to participate, but feel ostracized?  The reason that most of us on the "left" believe that religion should have a minimal  role (not "be banished") in public life is that we fundamentally believe that religion is _private_, and should stay that way.  Religion should not be a _requirement_ to participate in public life.  We achieve this by setting an example, by minimizing the role of religion in our public institutions.  If John Ashcroft leads prayer groups in his office and ALL of his senior staff are participants, do you feel that has maintained an appropriate distinction between church and state?  Perhaps you do. "Others on the modern left recognize no higher authority than the individual."  As far as authority goes, we can recognize the individual, the state, or God.  You seem to feel that God is the only acceptable answer to "higher authority".  I'm inclined to side with you on that one, but I will absolutely defend the right of someone else to make a different choice.  And while you and I might agree on the authority of God, we would not likely agree on religion, which I fairly firmly believe has nothing to do with God.  I would caution you to separate your arguments into two components: Belief in God, and belief in Religion.  They are enormously distinct. "And insofar as the modern left does acknowledge mankind's shortcomings, they see government as a tool to perfect mankind".  I think you and I would both agree that the optimal role for government is to damp down the most destructive aspects of individualism, and provide a mechanism for achieving certain limited goals related to the common good.  We can trot out the usuals here -- defense, trade, and so forth.  There's plenty of agreement there.  Us lefties like to add the environment to the list, because we really, truly believe that there are some very scary things that could happen to ALL of us if we aren't very careful.  And you know what?  I'll freely admit that we really don't know whether the environment is truly getting screwed over.  Most of us have had the realization, though, that we just don't want to take the chance.  The stakes are too high.  Individuals and corporations (and governments, for that matter), will often do things that are very damaging to society as a whole.  There's a river near where I grew up -- one that's been used as a channel for boats, for a long time (a century or more).  There's a guy on that river who's a golf player.  He decided that he wanted the golf hole on his property to be a little bigger, so he had a few hundred truckloads of earth dumped into the river, extending his property.  His new golf hole went almost three quarters of the way across the river, effectively blocking the channel.  Are these the kind of property rights that you want to defend?  Probably not.  The thing is, we (lefties again) interpret some property owner's actions as destructive to the commons.  But that's a very long argument in itself. "we see the values that were cast off: individual accountability, the recognition of the evilness of mankind, the definition of government as a necessary evil, the idea that government powers are derived from the people."  Neither you nor I believe in absolute individual accountability.  It is foolish of you to pretend that you do.  You and I are both highly dependent on the society we live in, for education, for medical care, and for our livelihoods. To pretend that you are solely responsible for every event in your life simply makes no sense.  Some times bad things really do happen to good people.  Some times bad things happen to bad people.  What we lefties would like to see is some minimal safety net out there, something that can help out when things get to their worst.  You believe in the same thing, but you call it a Church and a Community.  We think there is a role for a secular government to play in this regard. I refuse to recognize mankind as fundamentally evil.  This is a value judgement that you make, one that stems directly from your personal religion.  It has no place in our shared value set. I do not define government as a necessary evil, and you don't either.  Combining "necessary" with "evil" is simple wordplay so you can feel good as you finger-point at aspects of government you don't like.  It's a complex process.  It's necessary, and it's also not evil.  Would you describe the Bush Administration as "evil"?  I suspect not.  I don't either.  And as far as powers being derived from the people, please try and find one serious person on the left (or middle, or right) who doesn't believe that should be the case. As long as we're on the subject of values, let me tell you what I think matters: Freedom.  A large intellectual commons.  The right to be let alone.  Fiscal sanity.  Honesty.  Tolerance.  Any of these things ring with you?  I bet they do. Lastly, you state that "if you are a typical leftist, you see the government as a tool to accomplish whatever your ideas of good are".  Government action is a consensus, achieved by all of us, on every part of the spectrum.  In this manner we attempt to find a path, to use the powers of government for sensible ends.  The Administration is very vigorously using the "coercive power of government" to accomplish its "ideas of good", at the moment.  Government should also make use of its power in moderation, which is something you seem to agree with.  Most of us on the left feel that moderation has left the building, and won't be back for a while. There's a big spectrum of thought out there on the right, and I try recognize that.  You're a "Religious Values" conservative, and at least you're honest (see my values above) and open about why you think the way you do.  I hope you can respect the fact that a short list of fundamental values can differ between two reasonable persons, in this country.  And there is no higher value than this: This country was intended to be the best place on Earth for persons of differing values to coexist.  The sum of our values drives the direction and governance of this country. 2:55:47 AM     | comment [] | trackback []

Standard, Dumb-Ass Answers.  Are you a team player Republican, responding to an article or criticism? Please feel free to write a substantive answer, but try not to include any of the following standard, dumb-ass Republican answers: 1. If it's so bad in the US, why does everybody want to come here? 2. If you don't like it, why don't you just MOVE to another country? 3. France Sucks! 4. We'll just have to disagree, and you are too stupid to understand why you are wrong. 5. Take the average tax cut! See how the average American gets $1003 back? 6. The free market is the only thing that makes this country great. 7. By criticizing the President, you are unpatriotic. You do not support the troops. Therefore you are also guilty of treason. 8. If we DIDN'T have a tax cut, we'd have lost 1.4 million MORE jobs. 9. Halliburton is a fine company. 10. Nobody can prove global warming exists, so it doesn't. 11. Tax Cut! I don't know why! 12. Everybody knows that when you cut taxes, you can solve anything! I'm not going to accuse the administration of lying. I will accuse them of being deceptive. Do you believe they've been forthcoming and honest on the war issue, for example? If not, were they justified in some of their deception? Maybe there's a case to be made that some deception was necessary. I am also pretty damn tired of seeing right-wing bloggers retrofit unstated, secret, and probably non-existent policies to current realities (the flypaper theory). So many are jumping on the flypaper bandwagon -- do they not think that perhaps this sets up a worse credibility problem? No "flypaper" theory was ever announced in the run-up to war. 1:49:43 AM     | comment [] | trackback []

Mad World. All around me are familiar faces Worn out places, worn out faces Bright and early for their daily races Going nowhere, going nowhere And their tears are filling up their glasses No expression, no expression Hide my head I want to drown my sorrow No tommorow, no tommorow And I find it kind of funny I find it kind of sad The dreams in which I’m dying Are the best I’ve ever had I find it hard to tell you ’cos I find it hard to take When people run in circles It’s a very, very Mad world Children waiting for the day they feel good Happy birthday, happy birthday Made to feel the way that every child should Sit and listen, sit and listen Went to school and I was very nervous No one knew me, no one knew me Hello teacher tell me what’s my lesson Look right through me, look right through me It's by Roland Orzabal.  Find the Gary Jules version -- it's the best.  Sometimes I feel it creeping in...it's hard to make sense of everything that's going on around us.  So much media, so many things that are so hard to pay attention to.  What's important?  What do I need to know?  What should I really know?  Mad World. 1:43:54 AM     | comment [] | trackback []