Oliver Clozoff

[genderbender]

My response follows, but thought repeating yours would put it in context.

Where are you going, young man, and how did you become a Republican apologist?

I've noticed you use the term "Republican apologist" in a number of your posts. While I proudly admit I'm a member of the party and that I often defend it, I don't accept your label. After all, apologists are those who defend a cause for which most people would be ashamed. Defenders of morally abject political systems such as communism and fascism are apologists. So is anyone who speaks favorably of acid-wash jeans (note: joke). What really does the Republican party have to apologize for (except perhaps a certain caucasian stiffness on the dance floor)? Is defending the Republican party apologism, while defending the Democratic Party something else?

If it is, it would seem very strange. After all, as RisiaSkye astutely observed in her post last week, the political distance between the two major parties isn't nearly as great as the debate here and on other recent threads would suggest. In European countries with proportional representation systems, political power is divided amongst many political parties covering virtually the entire political spectrum. Neo-fascists and communists share the legislative floor with representatives of more moderate parties.

The same broad range of political beliefs exists here in America (to which debate here on lit surely attests), and yet when you examine American politics, the rainbow of the ideological spectrum is focused into two very thick bands, one lying just left of center and the other lying just right. Most of the emotional rhetoric lies at the poles of this spectrum, colored in bright conservative reds and liberal violets, but the actual practice of government lies in the muddy colors between, much of which is common to both bands.

The central political debate in our country today is, of course, "what exactly should government do now that its tax receipts far exceed its expenditures?". The Republican solution includes tax cuts, payments to shrink the national debt, and initiatives to strengthen the popular social welfare programs social security and medicare. And what do the Democrats propose? That's right. The same list: tax cuts, debt repayment, and social welfare spending. There are, certainly, planks of each party's platform that are flatly rejected by the other (e.g. the Republicans opposition to abortion is almost univerally opposed by Democrats), but these are small compared to the number and import of issues upon which the two parties agree in principle, but disagree on orders of priority.

What ideological differences exist between the two parties are blunted by their constant polling and focus-grouping. Both sides are constantly engaged breaking down their big top in an attempt to rebuild it over the moderate electorate. So for all of the talk of pandering to the special interests, when the going gets tough, the tough go to the middle. Why would they pander to their bases? Are blacks going to abandon the Democrats no matter how little the Dems continue to do for them?

All I've read from you so far concerning politics are your repeated criticisms of Bush's proposal, the Republican party, and the right half of the political spectrum, mostly focusing on economic issues. I haven't read your alternative, though. What should Bush do?

Do you favor the Democratic Plan of "moderate" tax cuts, along with a faster repayment of the national debt? Or should the poor get a tax cut while rates remain the same for the rich? Or should we raise rates on the rich? Do you yearn for the "good ol' days" of the 90% tax bracket? (abolished by JFK, by the way - not a Repub') Would you ever lower taxes for both groups if it was possible to make the cuts equitable? Is there even such thing as an equitable tax cut?

As for me, whether the tax cuts are closer to the Republicans' 1.6 trillion or the Dems' 1.0 tril, it's an improvement and I'm not about to look a gift tax cut in the mouth. (Not that it really is a gift, mind you, since the money belongs to the taxpayer in the first place). If the lower number goes through, I'll be mildly disappointed that the cuts weren't bigger, but I'll take comfort in the fact that we're moving in the right direction.

This is an extremely long-winded answer to your question, but the crux of my philosophy is simple. I agree with Churchill: Of all the forms of government ever devised, Democratic government is the least bad. I neither oppose a limited welfare state nor do I believe that necessary social services currently provided by the government could ever be entirely replaced by private charity, but I'm a firm believer that it has been individuals, both alone and in groups, who have made our country what it is - the most prosperous nation in the world. Our government certainly deserves much of the credit, but most of that credit should be given for what the government has not done, and not for what it has. It has largely avoided hindering innovation and progress, allowing talented people to achieve their goals and improve the general quality of life.

I also don't oppose a graduated income tax, but I do believe the current rates are punitive. On top of that, I believe that the current economic situation makes now a particularly apt time for a tax cut. Punitive tax rates can be bearable in prosperous economic times like they were in the '90's, but when consumer spending freezes up due to fear of bad times ahead, a tax cut is in order.

I'm curious whether your interest in medicine is because the money is good, or you have a chance to do good. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive...

I agree that they're not mutually exclusive, and I'll answer this way: if I was most interested in making money, I would not be in medicine. I'd be in Silicon Valley, on Wall St. or involved in some other sort of business enterprise. There are much easier ways to make much more money than medicine. (And most of them don't involve bodily fluids. ) But will I enjoy the lifestyle the profession affords me? Certainly.

I've sacrificed considerable time, expended great effort, and incurred significant debt in pursuit of this dream. I do this for a selfish reason: because I love medicine. I can think of no better way to use my talents and fulfill my personal obligations to serve my fellow man and relieve some of the suffering that's so great in this world.

But will I cash my checks?

Every last one.

 

[genderbender]

Thank you for answering my question so comprehensively. I’ll do my best to respond to you with equal clarity and directness. Much of what you say I wouldn’t quarrel with. You’ve clearly considered these matters and come to conclusions with which you’re comfortable. You might want to check the dictionary with regard to the word "apologist," however, since my use of the term has nothing to do with the need to apologize, as you imply. My American Heritage Dictionary has the following definition for the word.

apologist (ú-pÄl2ú-j<=st) n. 1. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, a policy, or an institution.

Seems pretty straightforward and applicable to me as well as to you as we speak in defense of "a doctrine, a policy, or an institution." That was a nice little riff you did, but unnecessary from my point of view. I know we both like to do those showy and dramatic things; strutting our stuff a bit, preening our feathers for the audience watching us. It’s fun! In that spirit I’ll also note that in distinguishing right and left, to which you assign the colors red and violet, you’ve selected two colors that lie next to one another on the spectrum, not at a great distance from each other. I trust that you made a simple error and not an exquisitely subtle point only a Talmudic scholar would wish to explicate.


In the interest of being concise I’ll cut right to the chase. You believe the current rates are "punitive" and that a reduction is warranted. I say that the more affluent among us have been riding a wave of prosperity to unimaginable wealth, while the rest of us have been languishing, often just keeping our heads above water. Now you personally are willing to tolerate your poverty because you can look forward to the rich rewards that will come with becoming a doctor. Bully for you! Not everyone is quite so fortunate however, which I address below. Before I go there, however, I’d like to direct you to some resources that are persuasive to me and to a certain extent underpin my position. The first link presents an analysis of the dramatic and growing disparity between families at the top of the economic scale and families lower down. The second link is a critique of Bush’s Treasury Department’s recent analysis of his tax cut proposal, observing how it deviates from conventional ways of presenting such material, and in doing so greatly exaggerates the benefits of his proposal to the less affluent. Since we’ve bantered about this subject on another thread I’m not really interested in debating the details at this time.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-01tax.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-01tax2.htm


Republicans accuse Democrats of fomenting "class warfare" whenever they raise the issue of economic justice. I don’t seek warfare, but my conception of what government is all about certainly includes attending to social and economic needs of the citizens it represents. You state –

I neither oppose a limited welfare state nor do I believe that necessary social services currently provided by the government could ever be entirely replaced by private charity, but I'm a firm believer that it has been individuals, both alone and in groups, who have made our country what it is - the most prosperous nation in the world.


Now you’re clearly a very intelligent person who happens to work in the health services field. You likely come face to face each day with the reality of society’s dislocations. We’re the only industrialized nation on the face of the earth that doesn’t assure all its citizens a fundamental right to health care. Sure, there are emergency rooms that will serve the indigent if the hospitals can’t find a way of getting out of it. Anyone paying attention to the dramatic increase in hospital mergers and concurrent hospital closures, has seen the efforts being made to avoid providing such services. We could continue our conversation regarding the health care field to consider prescription drugs and the elderly. We could consider illegal drugs and addictions running rampant in our society. We could talk about hopelessness that spawns violence, the gunshot and knife wounds you’ve likely seen in the emergency room. How many kids have been killed in schools over the last two years?

Something is awry in our supposedly successful nation. You’d like to talk about tax policy and I’d like to consider justice before we give away the resources that might make this a better place to live for those people struggling so mightily. I know when I say this I confront directly a tenet of the right which is only occasionally expressed, often in rather vulgar terms when no one seems to be listening. I grew up Republican, with a grandfather who returned checks given to him by the Eisenhower administration for not planting crops. If he didn’t work for it, he didn’t deserve to be paid. I admired the man greatly. Ours is a country founded by Puritans who had a very strong work ethic and little patience with those not able to make their own way. Charity was available, of course, but it carried with it an ignominy all recognized as they turned away from the recipient.

You and I were born into a land of rugged individualists who believe you need to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps." No doubt the energy and creativity of the American people have accomplished marvelous things over the four hundred years since settlers landed in what became Virginia. We’ve also tended to disregard the negative consequences of our acts, to the peril of our environment and of people not as adept at manipulating the economic and political system. Bush’s proposal for "faith based initiatives" is a good case in point. Like his father’s "thousand points of light," it expresses an optimism and generosity that is admirable. But I happen to believe it represents the soft edge of a less sanguine policy that at different times in our history has attempted to eviscerate any attempt to use government resources to protect people of less fortune, or the environment which cannot speak for itself.

It seems to me that Republicans are willing to reduce government, even at the risk of harming its less educated, less skilled members, in the belief that a thriving economy and private philanthropy will be adequate to address their needs. As a student of American history, it’s my opinion we’ve spent most of our years as a nation practicing those values and despite our remarkable financial prosperity, they haven’t worked very well. With the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, we embarked on an experiment in using government to address citizen’s economic and social welfare. We’ve had some successes and some failures. The effort has always been a struggle because of the sharp differences of opinion over both whether and how to address these issues.

I’m committed to exploring more humane ways of doing what we do as a government. I believe it is in our social and spiritual connectedness that we find something of real value as human beings. Money is essential to meet basic needs, and you’ll no doubt enjoy cashing all those big paychecks. But when it comes down to it, none of us is going to bring our Mercedes with us when we die. I’ve no doubt you mean it when you say one of the reasons you’re in medicine is to help people. Doctors have an incredible opportunity to be of service. Personally, I have more respect for those laboring among the less fortunate, people like Doctors Without Borders, than for those who golf on Wednesday afternoons. The point is, being generous, having compassion for those who struggle with the vicissitudes of life seem to me more noble goals than accumulating wealth. It is this belief that motivates me to support a political agenda founded in caring for the little guy.

You refer to Winston Churchill in defining your political philosophy. I rely upon other guides in finding my way through these important matters.

Whatever lives is full of the Lord. Claim nothing; enjoy, do not covet His property. Then hope for a hundred years of life doing your duty…Of a certainty the man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures, knows no sorrow.

This quote from the Upanishads, from a translation by W. B. Yeats, expresses values I wish to bring to the political arena, even as I bring them to my personal relations. It invites empathy and respect for everything in my world. Providing deep tax cuts for the wealthy of this country is of much less importance to me than utilizing the abundance we’ve created to care for those with whom I share this remarkably rare, and all too brief, journey of life.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

GB,

thanks for your thoughtful response. Does this mean I get to call you a Democratic apologist?

I don't have time now to respond, but I'll leave you with this to peruse:

http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/visible.html

more to come...

 

[genderbender]

GB,

thanks for your thoughtful response. Does this mean I get to call you a Democratic apologist?

The only amendment I'd make is democratic apologist, with emphasis on the small "d." Look forward to your response and I'll check the site you posted.

 

[genderbender]

GB,


I don't have time now to respond, but I'll leave you with this to peruse:

http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/visible.html

more to come...

I love it! That's what I get for looking at a color wheel in Photoshop instead of being as intrepid as you are. I stand corrected, foot now squarely in mouth.

[Edited by genderbender on 03-12-2001 at 12:18 PM]

 

[genderbender]

Another interesting story to ponder...

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0314-01.htm

I came across this story in the Boston Globe today and thought you might get a chuckle out of it Mr. Clozoff. Its pretty much in line with my thinking on the subject of the proposed tax cut. I like the story, of course.

I notice you've been on the board today. Now that I've happily nibbled that little bit of crow about the light spectrum, I feel fortified as I await your response to my musings.

Of course, things are happening so quickly in Washington its difficult to keep track of incendiary issues. There's the eviscerating of the repetitive stress regulations by the Republican congress, Bush's about face on treating CO2 as an emission requiring regulation and the news item below about the man Bush wishes to appoint as overseer of federal regulations for health and the environment. It must warm you heart to know our country is in such capable hands at last.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0312-05.htm

[Edited by genderbender on 03-14-2001 at 02:00 PM]

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I really find very little to criticize in your comments. How can anyone with a heart not feel for the less fortunate? Despite our disagreements, I contend we want essentially the same thing: an opportunity for all Americans to participate in the success that has come to be known as "The American Dream".

I know it's not nearly as sexy to argue the nuts and bolts of economics as it is the morality of economic "haves" and "have-nots", but my rebuttals chiefly concern your fundamental economic premise of economic justice as a zero-sum game. In zero-sum economics, of course, there's fixed amount of wealth. In this scenario, taking more from the rich necessarily puts more dollars in the pockets of the poor, while taking less from the rich deprives the poor. But in reality, wealth isn't just shuffled back and forth from poor to rich to middle-class and so on. It's actually created. We know this because there have been extended periods in economic history in which all classes have made significant strides in both real income and quality of life. In recent centuries the creation of wealth has been fueled by innovation, the development of new ways to do things better, faster, cheaper, easier. Again and again it's happened and it continues today at an ever-increasing rate.

In reality, there isn't a linear relationship between tax rates and government spending. As one continues to raise taxes, revenues eventually reach a peak and then start to fall, because essentially the rate increase has killed the golden goose, taxing the economy into stagnation and depriving rich and poor alike of wealth (except that the poor aren't completely deprived, because social programs continue via deficit spending. If only individuals were afforded that luxury...)

So at what tax rate does the magic parabolic peak of maximal tax income lie? If I knew, I'd have a Nobel on my desk. The problem is that it's constantly in flux as a result of the vast maelstrom of competing economic forces, notably vague and intangible concepts like "consumer confidence" (causes people to continue to spend, faithful that money will continue to roll in) and "investor confidence" (investments are made with the faith that they'll earn a worthwhile return).

I would argue that one year ago tax rates were well left of the diminishing point (and therefore increases in taxes would've created revenue). The economy was booming and strong enough to bear a tax hike. Today, however, I'm not so confident. In fact, with the economy turning sour, we may be on the right of that point now (or at least we're in imminent danger of reaching it soon). Once to its right, lowering taxes actually increases revenue. This is why a tax cut is called for. It not only frees cash to be spent and invested, but it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of growing prosperity by instilling confidence in investors and consumers.

My second point is that I think when it comes to government it's results, not intentions that count. The analogy I've heard that best describes the difference between political conservatives and liberals involves the relationship of each to the unachievable.

Imagine two contractors given the task of building a grand and fantastically challenging skyscraper. The first contractor does his best to build it, only to have it collapse around him before it's completed. The second, realizing the enormity of the task and the limitations of his own abilities, scales back the project, instead erecting a much less impressive, but buildable design. That to me is conservatism at its very best; it's the maximization of the currently possible.

Of course, occasionally great men come along and accomplish things we never before imagined possible. Those people are the true innovators in society. But in order to innovate, they have to dominate not only the impossible, but simple people like me, who just try to hold things together and build practical little buildings for us to live in while we wait for the impossible to become possible.

You seem to be fond of eastern religions. It's a bit like like my simple understanding of the yin and the yang. The possible and the impossible. I'm happy to represent the yin.

Or is it the yang?

P.S. (enjoying this discussion )

 

[genderbender]

I’m enjoying our dialogue as well. Strangely, no one seems to want to jump in. Do you think we’re boring them?

I agree with your observation that talking about tax revenues available isn’t a zero sum game. Yet you draw some conclusions based upon that observation, which strike me as shaky. First, you slip into the supply side argument that simply reducing taxes will stimulate the economy and produce sufficient new income that total revenues will be increased rather than reduced.

Once to its right, lowering taxes actually increases revenue. This is why a tax cut is called for. It not only frees cash to be spent and invested, but it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of growing prosperity by instilling confidence in investors and consumers.

I like the quote below from a Slate magazine article published in 1996 when Bob Dole was peddling his version of the tax cut.

"So why does the supply-side idea keep on resurfacing? Probably because of two key attributes that it shares with certain other doctrines, like belief in the gold standard: It appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure."

Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at Stanford whose books include The Age of Diminished Expectations and Peddling Prosperity.

If you care to peruse the whole article it can be viewed at: http://slate.msn.com/Dismal/96-08-15/Dismal.asp

I’ve included reference to a site that offers a more thorough analysis of supply side economic theory as applied during the Reagan administration. You will note that it didn’t work very well, either in stimulating savings or in putting people to work. As economists have pointed out, the fact the nation was experiencing a recession when Reagan came into office and recovered after the tax cut doesn’t mean the tax cut produced the turn around. Factoring out the business cycle fluctuations the tax cut had negligible benefits in stimulating the economy while at the same time producing a dramatic increase in the deficit. One can argue how much of the increase was due to lost tax revenues and how much to excess spending, but as you observe, it is better to be conservative in attempting grand schemes in complicated arenas. Since no one seems able to induce Congress members of either party to exercise self-restraint, it probably isn’t a good idea to pursue any strategy that requires great fiscal discipline on the part of 535 individuals, all of whom will eventually seek re-election.

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

I also refer you to an analysis of Reagan’s supply side pyrotechnics prepared in response to one of your cohorts suggestion that the deficit created as a result of Reaganomics was a product of Democratic perfidy instead of lousy economic theory. (I wonder if it makes you just a tiny bit uncomfortable to find yourself in bed with Tom Delay on any subject.)

http://www.ctj.org/html/canard.htm

The second half of your analysis also seems to rest on shaky assumptions. You suggest that high rates of taxation will stifle creativity and thereby kill the goose that lays the golden tax revenue windfall. This is an interesting question that has many facets, not all of which are relevant to this discussion. For example, do you believe that doctors in Britain, who are paid far less than their counterparts in America are any less motivated to achieve excellence in their care of patients? Do they shirk their responsibilities in the laboratory when doing research work? Do executives in European countries who earn only forty times what is paid the worker on the factory floor, rather that 400 times as chief executives in this country, work less diligently on behalf of their shareholders? I’ve noticed of late that a number of German companies have been acquiring American companies, or expanding their operations into North America. Executives from these companies get paid less and pay higher taxes, yet they seem to be quite successful at what they do. So tell me again the correlation?

More to the point, let’s look at the results of the most recent tax increase in 1993, which as I’ve observed before was passed without a single Republican vote. As the Slate article observes, all the supply side gurus prophesized doom would be the result of this tax increase. I don’t want to get into an argument over whether Clinton’s insistence on increasing taxes was the sole cause for this country’s incredible resurgence, but I do want to observe that the wealthy of this country made a killing after the tax increase. I refer you to another article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-01tax.htm

It seems pretty clear to me that the current marginal tax rates are not so high as to stifle innovation. Folks have been doing just fine, especially the folks at the top end of the spectrum. (A different spectrum that I feel a bit more secure in talking about, clearly.) I don’t doubt that they’d love to have a tax reduction, just as doctors and executives will tell you they need big bucks to be effective at what they do. But it’s really all eyewash. As the article I note above observes, if you were going to try to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, a tax cut for low and middle-income people would be far more effective since they’ll spend the money fastest. And, as I’ve already noted before, monetary policy is the effective tool for dealing with the current contraction, not fiscal policy. I understand its useful politically to try to link the current slowdown with need for a tax cut, but only the unwashed masses are buying that malarkey. You’re smarter than that, even though your commitment to ideology may lead you to argue otherwise.

I’ll insert a brief quote here from today’s New York Times taken from an article discussing the "bubble" which is presently bursting all around us.

Originally published in New York Times, March 16, 2001
But the American bubble was real, and its bursting will have consequences. There was economic strength, but some of it came from excessive investment in certain industries, and from the spending of the profits, real and anticipated, that came from the boom. Now the money borrowed, either to finance wasted investments or in expectation of wealth to come, will have to be paid back. That will take time. Tax and interest rate reductions will help, but are not magic potions.

A Tale of Two Bubbles. Could This One Be Painless?
By Floyd Norris

Arguably all the money lost by some people was reaped by wiser men and women and will find its way back into the economy. But investing money doesn’t necessarily improve either our economy or the well being of our citizens. We can talk about the orgy of investment in haphazardly conceived e-commerce companies that never had a dream of being profitable. The success of these companies in the stock market only highlights the truth about the NASDAC which for the last two years was little more than a Ponzi scheme. We can also talk about the orgy of investment in real estate development during the 1980’s that ended with the monumental bailout by the rest of us silly taxpayers. Some of those people responsible for this debacle filed bankruptcy, but many walked away with handsome profits derived largely from public revenues. I don’t buy the argument that the only way to make investments that benefit our economy is to give it to wealthy people or the makers of weapons. (I’d like to hear your opinion about defense appropriations which stands second only to tax cuts on the agenda for conservatives. Perhaps that could become round two, or is it three?)

This morning I listened to a discussion of the proposed tax cut on local public radio. One of the participants was Kevin Phillips, a conservative political analyst, publisher of American Political Report, and author of "The Politics of Rich and Poor. He quipped that Republicans suffer from a disease similar to rabies. Whenever the subject of tax cuts comes up, Republicans froth at the mouth. I chuckled at that and couldn’t resist including it here.

Frankly, I think Clinton got it just about right when he proposed an increase in marginal rates at the top of the schedule and tightened the purse strings so we could begin to pay down the debt. If you want to talk about a zero-sum game, we could talk about how reducing the national debt would reduce the cost of borrowing for everyone in the country, both wealthy and lower income families. With lower payments on mortgage and bank loans, people will have more disposable income to spend on consumption or investment. The nice thing about this strategy is that you pay down as quickly as revenues warrant, or more slowly if there is a contraction in the business cycle. I also believe that if you are going to make a tax cut, you want to give the bulk of the cut to lower income families who haven’t fared as well as their wealthy neighbors. Its good to remember that the reduction in capital gains taxes a short while ago, was a dramatic benefit for the wealthy, many of whom make the bulk of their income from capital gains. They simply don’t need a further reduction in taxes and I’ve come across no argument that convinces me our well being economically is tied to giving the wealthy the opportunity to make investments. With sufficient resources, even middle income people will invest. And we can’t forget the lower income folks, especially since so much of our well being is dependent upon consumption. They would do that very well if given even the slightest chance. IMHO a tax cut targeted to lower and middle income families will both help the economy and serve the issue of economic justice.

 

[Laurel]

Holy Shit

A civilized political discussion.

Hold me, I think I may faint.

 

[Ally C]

Moderation?

Politics like alcohol is good in moderation. I'm NOT a communist, for example, but I still feel obliged to point out that there has never been a 'true' example of communism. Calling communism "morally abject" is a bit rich if you take stock of the morals [or lack of morals] displayed by any other political party, be it old, new, borrowed or blue. If it's about morals, then I would have thought that a political belief which ascribes to the common benefit of all citizens is a noble one. Unfortunately, people - unlike belief systems - are notoriously difficult to account for. The 'ruling classes' of what we might think of and describe as 'communist' countries were / are to blame for the failings of those countries. The paradox that these leaders became a 'ruling class' is the giveaway here ...

As the world now inexorably gravitates to a broader embracing of 'capitalist' / 'Western' ideals I doubt that morals will be less abject than before. Hopefully living conditions and basic human rights will improve; and whatever name we assign to our political beliefs, lets just hope that the end result is less painful than the [political] process of actually getting there.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Good point, AllyC. I stand corrected. Instead of being morally abject, Communism is a beautiful fantasy, but like other utopian ideas it rests on a false set of assumptions, a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and what motivates us.

Instead of being morally abject then, I believe communism is fatally flawed. You point out that there has never been an example of "true communism". I contend that communism's failure is not because it wasn't properly carried out, but that it was. The lack of opportunity for financial and occupational self-interest was its downfall, because as crass as it may sound, the desire for personal wealth is a powerful motivator to create innovations which will benefit all and create a better society. Communism failed to take advantage of that great human motivator.

I wouldn't go as far as to endorse Gordon Gecko's quip in Wall Street that "greed is good", because it obviously has its downside, but I will say that taking away the motivation for innovation is less good.

So communism is practically inferior rather morally abject.

But in any case, I still think its advocation is worthy of apology.

Gotta go to clinic. more to come...

 

[Ally C]

Its advocation might well be worthy of an apology if I'd actually advocated it. I said its ['basic' or 'true'] aims were noble, which they are. Sorry I never got out my copy of 'Leviathan', my lack of content [re: human nature in relation to governing powers] wasn't because I hadn't considered it, but because I wasn't stressing that point. Your usage of 'Utopia' is in the true spirit of the word, and I agree with it. The fact that a certain country usually described as 'communist' did so well in a certain space race, for example, casts a shadow of doubt on a lack of innovation. Nonetheless, that idea of the U.S.S.R. has fallen like the amalgamation of countries it once described. Perhaps it's not so much "practically inferior" as 'we' are? I know we're saying much the same here, but I like to word it differently; you know, like those Republicans and Democrats you and GB are so fond of discussing?

To avoid getting bogged down with semantics, let's all admit that the whole world is in fact a communist regime. After all [using YOUR line of reasoning - hope you don't object comrade], human nature being what it is, it doesn't make any difference what we call the eventual powers that be.

 

[genderbender]

...like those Republicans and Democrats you and GB are so fond of discussing?

Ally, welcome to the conversation. I appreciate that your words convey serious ideas rather than vitriol.

I'll take slight exception to your characterization of where my interests lie in my dialogue with Mr. Clozoff. If you've read all of my posts, I hope you noted my interest in focusing the conversation on matters of social and economic justice. It seems Oliver's interest in exploring tax policy stems from his contention that theories of the right best assure a growing economy that will benefit the less well to do. You've probably heard it referred to a "trickle down" theory, which states "a rising tide lifts all boats." Liberals parody that as "a rising tide lifts all yachts." Since the subject keeps focusing on political and economic philosophy as played out in this country, I find myself obliged to represent a Democratic point of view. There is no viable point of view to the left of a rather conservative Democratic party, sad to say. However, I've said elsewhere on this board, I think on the thread dealing with the USS Churchill, that I encourage those in Europe to eschew our rather unkind politics in favor of the more social democratic perspective that seems more respectable there. I certainly appreciated the give and take on that thread by Europeans and those close to events in Europe.

And Laurel, I've known in my heart as I've written each submission that you would smile. Talking with Ollie is a pleasure, even if it takes a two-by-four to get his attention. One would have thought he was the mule in this conversation rather than the elephant. Elephants are reputed to never forget, but Ollie seems intent on disproving that theory all by himself. He's never seen a tax cut he doesn't love, regardless of the rather disreputable history of the theory he's espousing. Oh well, I'll keep trying. Perhaps one of these days he'll read and digest the many analyses I'm presenting him and we'll have a convert on our hands. I'm not holding my breath, however...

"... the supply-side idea ... appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure."

Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at Stanford whose books include The Age of Diminished Expectations and Peddling Prosperity.

Its a conundrum since Ollie tells us all he's not rich and he doesn't present himself as a person who's intellectually insecure. Maybe he's kidding us and he really is rich. Or maybe he aspires to be rich and is trying on the accoutrements of wealth. If so, I don't think they're very becoming. But that's just my humble opinion.



[Edited by genderbender on 03-16-2001 at 12:55 PM]

 

[Todd]

Re: Holy Shit

Hold me.

I would love to hold you but Manu would probably want to knock my block off.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

AllyC, wasn't trying to imply you were advocating communism. I was referring to my earlier post where I suggested that any advocate of communism and fascism is defending an inferior political system.

The fact that a certain country usually described as 'communist' did so well in a certain space race, for example, casts a shadow of doubt on a lack of innovation. Nonetheless, that idea of the U.S.S.R. has fallen like the amalgamation of countries it once described. Perhaps it's not so much "practically inferior" as 'we' are?

Do you mean that the Soviet Union fell because of the flaws in human nature, and not because of the flaws inherent in communism? It certainly did fall because of human nature, but this human nature exists everywhere. Why hasn't republican democracy fallen in the the west? It's not because our people are any less flawed than theirs. It's because democracy recognizes that people in positions of power tend to abuse that power to the detriment of those they govern. The saying from Orwell's Animal Farm is thus: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Any government that is to be just has to take this reality into account and communism fails to do this.

The vast majority of people in the Soviet Union could not vote. Only members of the party could elect the leaders. (Imagine if Tories passing a law saying that from now on, only Conservatives can vote!) Non-party members were subject to the whims of party members who claimed to act on behalf of their all their "comrades", but actually acted only in their own self-interest, because the people had no power to remove them if and when they did so. If anyone spoke up against the party, they were tracked by the KGB. If they considered enough of a threat to the party, they were imprisoned in Siberian Gulags or killed. Check out Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. It's all there.

The idea that caring, qualified "brothers" will look out for us is an attractive one and is a great utopian notion to be sure, but is it realistic? The abdication of all your personal power to others who may very well take advantage of you is not my idea of a equitable political system. Without political representation, communism is simply tyranny disguised as brotherhood.

How many non-Communists in the USSR actually enjoyed the fruits of the innovation you mention? Mikhail Gorbachev has admitted the struggle to keep up with America in the arms and the space races required the nation to neglect its own people and eventually resulted in political instability and the fall of the government. If you weren't a member of the party, your prosperity was sacrificed to the government.

Republican democracy avoids these problems, of course, by regularly allowing the people to lawfully remove their leaders if they're dissatisfied with them. Thus the saying, "ours a nation of laws and not of men". Leaders are given power and thus can become corrupt, but they don't have absolute power, so they can't become corrupt absolutely.

American government was formed by these very same issues. A similar injustice is what sparked the American Revolution: American colonists (subjects of the crown like any other) had no vote for members of Parliament, so when London submitted the colonies to heavy taxation, the colonists only political recourse would be to fight.

And don't speak as if Communism was dead, although the USSR and its satellite nations fell! Communist governments in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea are still here and continuing to abuse the rights of their citizens.

[/b]To avoid getting bogged down with semantics, let's all admit that the whole world is in fact a communist regime. After all [using YOUR line of reasoning - hope you don't object comrade], human nature being what it is, it doesn't make any difference what we call the eventual powers that be.[/B]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that all governments are the essentially the same? That representative governments in America, Britain, and elsewhere are equivalent to the communist governments of the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea? And how does my reasoning concerning human nature imply that all governments are the same?

Human nature is a complex variety of motivations and drives that motivate our behavior. I believe it to be universal. Political systems vary. Those that are founded with accurate notions of human nature are obviously superior to those that are not.

I know America doesn't have a perfect record on human rights, but try comparing it to the the communist countries listed above. Stalin killed more than 3 times as many political dissidents as Hitler killed in concentration camps. Mao killed even more than Stalin.

Now that I think about it, I've changed my mind. A political system which allows such monumental slaughter, no matter how well intentioned, is morally abject.

GB: No mistaking you for a Dem here. Even the Dems want a tax cut.

 

[Purple Haze]

Now that I think about it, I've changed my mind. A political system which allows such monumental slaughter, no matter how well intentioned, is morally abject.

Does anybody have the numbers on how many American Indians were exterminated by our government in the 1800's? I'm not saying there's anything we can or should do about it now, but it is something that is too easily ignored by most.

I'm enjoying this thread, I just wish I could type.

 

[genderbender]

GB: No mistaking you for a Dem here. Even the Dems want a tax cut.

To borrow a line from one of your heroes,

"There he goes again..."

Oliver, how many times do I have to say my objection isn't to the idea of a taxcut, but to its magnitude and shape? I'm too lazy to list all the times I've made that point. So I'll take your comment as a friendly tweak.

Your comments to Ally C, open up another fascinating thread of political discourse. How open, truly is our vaunted democracy? Power comes in different forms, including that created by great wealth. As the campaign finance imbroglio we're witnessing in Washington at the moment implies, there may be a problem in America with how money translates into influence. We may be closer to an oligarchy than a truly representative democracy. Its sort of like the mushroom theory of public policy, keep them in the dark and feed them shit. As long as Americans get to watch plenty of TV, and have enough income to pay for beer and junk food, distracted by sports and mesmerized by the sexualization of virtually everything through ubiquitous advertising, they won't notice that their country is being devoured by special interests who don't give a shit about them so long as they pay their bills...witness the present passage of the bill eviscerating a consumers' right to file bankruptcy. Chalk up another victory for the banking industry, whose pockets are deep and connections legion. You know, your friends who want a bigger tax cut.

But that's another topic for another time. I don't want to have you so distracted by communism and the regrettable flaws in our democratic system that we lose track of the issues of equity and tax policy. We can tackle these other subjects as time permits.

 

[genderbender]

Does anybody have the numbers on how many American Indians were exterminated by our government in the 1800's? I'm not saying there's anything we can or should do about it now, but it is something that is too easily ignored by most.

I'm enjoying this thread, I just wish I could type.

That's what I refer to above as one of the regrettable effects of the wonderful unfolding of creativity and productivity that Oliver embraces. Those nasty Indians got in the way of commerce. They made the west unsafe for consumers, I mean settlers, and therefore had to be exterminated in the name of progress. That's sort of like any endangered species that might have to be sacrificed in the name of another shopping center or subdivision some enterprising, creative entrepreneur gives us. Don't sweat the small stuff! (I'm paraphrasing Oliver's friends here, not expressing my own opinion on the matter.)

Personally, to you, PurpleHaze...I find it quite a bit easier to compose more lengthy contributions with my word processor before copying and inserting them at this site. And learning to type is simply a matter of practice, practice, practice. If you've got something to say I encourage you to improve your skills as a typist and speak! I've learned to type at the computer keyboard, which is remarkably forgiving since it is so easy to change mistakes. With a word processor you can also take advantage of the spell checker. See ya around.

 

[genderbender]

Oliver - You made a comment on the thread about the USS Winston Churchill I’d like to reprise in the context of this discussion about communism, the Soviet Union and the superiority of representative democracy…

...It's extremely easy to criticize leaders in hindsight. Knowing what we do now, that the allies would win the war, it's easy to find fault with allied failures. But one of the greatest mistakes people make in analyzing history is that historical outcomes were inevitable. Allied victory was not a foregone conclusion...

I have no wish to defend the Evil Empire, as your friends called it. I’d like to invite you to consider that the story has yet to be fully told about the efficacy of our present form of government.

…. Why hasn't republican democracy fallen in the the west? It's not because our people are any less flawed than theirs. It's because democracy recognizes that people in positions of power tend to abuse that power to the detriment of those they govern. The saying from Orwell's Animal Farm is thus: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Any government that is to be just has to take this reality into...

You appear pretty confident that we’re on the right track. You rely on the good offices of the affluent, on their entrepreneurial spirit to create an environment that will sustain the noble experiment of these United States of America. In an earlier post I pointed toward what appear to be fractures in the body politic. You didn’t respond to the concerns I raised. I’m bringing them up again in this context because I believe their resolution will ultimately determine whether our experiment in representative democracy is successful. We’re at risk in my opinion. When prosperity is predicated primarily on consumerism, I don’t find it surprising that a certain anomie exists. Owning will never satisfy the human being’s search for meaning. This is a spiritual quest, something those committed to materialism seem never to comprehend.

There’s nothing in the conservative agenda that responds to these human needs. "Family values" and a hectoring morality that characterize the religious right, offer nothing of value in addressing these issues. Instead our culture has offered sex, drugs and rock and roll, to assuage the pain of the unwashed masses. Merchants are remarkably adept at creating the illusion that what they're selling is of some transcendent value. Over the last few years, probably in response to the illusion of wealth created by rising stock prices, we’ve seen remarkable expenditures for the most extravagant purchases, from luxury cars, to oversize homes, to Jacuzzi bathtubs, to international travel. Are we having fun yet?

Is it any wonder that those unable to indulge fantasies of living such a life succumb either to depression or antisocial behavior? Is it any wonder that addictions and violence pervade our society? I’ve no doubt you’re aware that we have more people in prison in the United States than in any other nation on earth.

http://www.timesofindia.com/today/28worl51.htm

In California, the incarceration rate is higher than any other state or nation.

http://www.prisonactivist.org/crisis/prison-industrial.html

from "California's expanding prison-industrial complex"

California Spending on Prisons vs. Education
The state government tells us it spends more than $19 billion on education (including K-12) and about $3.4 billion on corrections. This is misleading. According to both Geoff Long of the state Budget Committee, and the New York Times, the state actually spends $4.4 billion on youth and adult corrections alone (not including jails) and $4.3 billion on higher education. PARC's independent research found that the amount the state of California spends on incarceration, including county jails, is more than $5.6 billion. Note that this does not include psychiatric lock-ups or city jails, much less the cops and the courts. California is spending far and away more on repression and locking people up than it is on educating people.

Many of my closest friends work in child protective service agencies in the Bay Area. I hear stories about physical and sexual abuse that would shock and haunt most normal people. The statistics on child abuse are skyrocketing.

http://www.yesican.org/statistics.html

Whether we're simply recognizing abuse better or there is an actual increase in abuse, it’s a sign of sickness at the heart of our country.

We recall with a smile the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Frankly, that seems to be precisely what advocates of the right are doing as they indulge their dreams of tax-cut paradise. From their/your perspective, all we need is more police, more rigorous laws and more prisons to control the recalcitrant, who won’t or can’t buy into the dream espoused by your leaders. I’ve suggested above that wealth has brought incredible power to a small cadre of people and that we may be closer to aristocracy than a truly representative democracy. It’s really a two-tier process. The politicians need our votes to get elected. We’re manipulated by sound bites and targeted campaigns designed to give us what polling and focus groups tell the politicos we want to hear. Then, there’s what happens in Washington, where major contributors and those able to mount lobbying efforts shape legislation and determine appropriations.

Will it work in the long run? I don't know, but I'm far less sanguine than you seem to be about what is presently happening in our country.

[Edited by genderbender on 03-17-2001 at 06:50 PM]

 

[Ally C]

The silence of the 'sheep'?

Your comments to Ally C, open up another fascinating thread of political discourse. How open, truly is our vaunted democracy?

But that's another topic for another time. I don't want to have you so distracted by communism and the regrettable flaws in our democratic system that we lose track of the issues of equity and tax policy. We can tackle these other subjects as time permits.

Yes, we could. Restrictions on my time mean that I don't contribute as regularly as I'd like to here. This being the case, I tend to miss moments where I can 'instantly' reply. Another downside of this is that I miss watching Oliver as he beautifully side-steps my line of reasoning in favour of his own. That was quite a dance you did with my comments on communism. It takes two to tango, so I'm back again, and being a bad dancer I refuse to follow your 'lead'.

'Human nature' being in essence the same the world over (as you agree Oliver), how 'it' is governed relies on control. Your political viewpoint seems to rest heavily on the 'absolute power' theory which you claim to be distanced from.

Also, communism is very much dead indeed. It was a stillborn political ideology, being conceived in Lenin's "What is to be Done?" (1902), but failing totally to live up to its 'Bolshevik' name (which meant 'majoritarian'). It was at heart a democratic project underpinned by a much vaunted 'social' good. The examples you give are well publicised, and I am aware of them Oliver. As Margaret Thatcher pronounced: "There is no such thing as society". In line with my previous reasoning which you objected to, it seems that [British] conservatism has its parallels with the ultimate fate of (so-called) 'communism', perhaps with an added historical twist if we think of colonialism as an alter-ego of 'communist' dominance and '[social] conquest'. Indeed, British conservatism seems at times (certainly as manifested during the Thatcher era) to have been a bastard cousin of what is now thought of as 'communism', not entirely, but certainly in some psycho-essential way. Utopian ideals may well be folly, but if we are to take questions and possible answers to the 'human condition' seriously, then I don't think it's at all prudent to enclose these questions / answers within the parameters of any one political party.

As for the rampant consumerism which GB refers to, I am reminded of Douglas Coupland's "Generation X" which I read some time ago. I don't like sitting in veal fattening pens either, and what with recent events (here in Britain) I think that sitting in 'dumb' acceptance is hardly an enabling position to take.

... as flames go, well ... I've seen quite enough on the news.

I hope you both continue this discussion (Oliver and GB), I'll try not to detract from it too much - honest!

 

[genderbender]

Welcome back Ally C

Welcome back Ally. It appears both you and Oliver are too busy to play with me. I'm blessed with too much leisure and clearly not enough to do, since I visit the site often and have time to respond quickly to posts on subjects that interest me.

I revisited your posts and went back to Ollie's comments, trying to see if I could follow the flow of your conversation more accurately. I have to admit that upon first reading I hadn't paid close attention, in large measure because it seemed a distraction from the dialogue Ollie and I were having. I sense from your comments here and elsewhere on the board that you and I are not far from one another in terms of political philosophy, yet your choice of words and style of presentation makes it difficult at times for me to follow your argument. However, I finally picked up on the point you made about communism, as articulated below and agree with you.

…In line with my previous reasoning which you objected to, it seems that [British] conservatism has its parallels with the ultimate fate of (so-called) 'communism', perhaps with an added historical twist if we think of colonialism as an alter-ego of 'communist' dominance and '[social] conquest'. Indeed, British conservatism seems at times (certainly as manifested during the Thatcher era) to have been a bastard cousin of what is now thought of as 'communism', not entirely, but certainly in some psycho-essential way…

Many of us in the West fail to recognize our own chauvinism. We delude ourselves with the notion that what we're doing is benign, even beneficial. This stance is seen in its most blatant form as the "white man's burden." We first made the world safe for Christianity, then for democracy, but always for capitalism. Such hubris! Conservatives are caught as fully as any ideologue in a world view that demands converts or subjects. Mr. Clozoff's characterization of human beings as avaricious and power hungry offers the perfect justification for conversion and/or control. And, so long as the scorecard used for measuring virtue is the size of one's bank account, the wealthy have every reason to lord it over the rest of us. As I suggest above, this is a very Puritanical point of view. We know from history that Puritans believed virtue is measured by worldly success.

The fact that such puerile self-assurance is an illusion is beside the point when wealth is so easily translated into political power which is then wielded to insure their world view is implemented. You see, those in power, define the rules of the game. For example, affluent, largely white professionals use large amounts of powdered cocaine, while poor blacks use large amounts of less expensive crack cocaine. It's all cocaine, mind you. But when it comes to sentencing someone convicted of possession of these forms of the same drug, the person possessing crack cocaine, "the rejected among us" (to use the gospel phrase) gets the heavy sentence.

from Appendix B - SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON CRACK/POWDER COCAINE SENTENCING DIFFERENTIAL


8. American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged the Sentencing Commission to request
Congress to eliminate the penalty provisions that distinguish crack cocaine from powder cocaine. In its written submission, the ACLU presented many of the findings of a panel of experts that participated in its 1993 national symposium, "Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." The ACLU stated, "the overwhelming testimony of the expert's (sic) panel was that the mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine are not medically, scientifically or socially supportable, are highly inequitable against African Americans, and represent a national drug policy tinged with racism."

For the full report you can visit - http://www.ussc.gov/crack/appndxb.pdf

It's the golden rule, stupid, "He who has the gold rules."

…Utopian ideals may well be folly, but if we are to take questions and possible answers to the 'human condition' seriously, then I don't think it's at all prudent to enclose these questions / answers within the parameters of any one political party.

The Tibetan Dalai Lama was participating in a conference on psychology with a group of western psychologists. I heard an interview with the Dalai Lama's translator who attended the conference. One of the psychologists used the phrase "low self-esteem" during his presentation. The Dalai Lama, who speaks English, but clearly not so well that he doesn't avail himself of the services of a translator, turned to the man for clarification of what that phrase meant. For the next twenty minutes, everyone present attempted to explain low self-esteem for him. Even at the end of this discussion he was bewildered that such a condition could exist.

There is a huge divide within our culture, between the vast majority, most of whom were raised in the Christian faith, who accept the notion of man as "sinful and unclean," requiring redemption through faith or works, and the smaller minority that retains a more hopeful view of human character. Christians will tell us that if we acknowledge the error of our ways, taking Christ as our savior, we will be saved. Frankly, I think it’s a perverse offer. When I admit I'm worthless, I'm given the opportunity to accept their notion of redemption. Clearly, we come by our low self-esteem honestly. Its been drilled into us from infancy that we're sinners. Is it any wonder that controlling people, saving them from their baser instincts is such a powerful force for certain actors on the political stage?

We'll let the wealthy make the critical decisions because the poor can't be trusted, their profligate ways will surely doom us. I believe you're correct Ally when you say these issues can't be contained with the framework of political parties. Yet it is easy to see the roots from which both conservative and liberal political philosophies flow. Oliver will say that the distinction has to do with their relationship to the unachievable.

...My second point is that I think when it comes to government it's results, not intentions that count. The analogy I've heard that best describes the difference between political conservatives and liberals involves the relationship of each to the unachievable.

Imagine two contractors given the task of building a grand and fantastically challenging skyscraper. The first contractor does his best to build it, only to have it collapse around him before it's completed. The second, realizing the enormity of the task and the limitations of his own abilities, scales back the project, instead erecting a much less impressive, but buildable design. That to me is conservatism at its very best; it's the maximization of the currently possible.

Of course, occasionally great men come along and accomplish things we never before imagined possible. Those people are the true innovators in society. But in order to innovate, they have to dominate not only the impossible, but simple people like me, who just try to hold things together and build practical little buildings for us to live in while we wait for the impossible to become possible.

As suggested by my comments above, it is my opinion the difference between conservative and liberal points of view, is more fundamental. The conservative holds back because opening to new possibilities is fraught with fear. Grasping tradition creates at least the illusion of certainty in the face of not knowing. The liberal holds a more relaxed view of things as they are, willing to invest in new possibilities when the investment enhances freedom for everyone. The conservative holds a more cautious view of their fellows, while the liberal is more generous in accepting diversity, imperfection and possibility. Neither stance is good or bad. My experience, however, in living from both places at different times in my life tells me that the more liberal, open stance is the one I prefer to embrace. That's probably why I find myself closer to Buddhism at this point in my life rather than Christianity, at least as Christianity was practiced within the religion of my youth. It is also why I marvel at the Dalai Lama's incomprehension of low self-esteem that is so pervasive in our culture. There is surely another path and I'm committed to finding a more generous, kinder way of being with others in the world. That may seem utopian but not to me. It is what Carlos Castaneda described in his Teachings of Don Juan as the path with heart.

To quote the Buddhist Mehta prayer, "May all beings be peaceful, may all beings be happy."

 

[Ally C]

Another belated and random interjection!

The conservative holds back because opening to new possibilities is fraught with fear. Grasping tradition creates at least the illusion of certainty in the face of not knowing. The liberal holds a more relaxed view of things as they are, willing to invest in new possibilities when the investment enhances freedom for everyone. The conservative holds a more cautious view of their fellows, while the liberal is more generous in accepting diversity, imperfection and possibility. Neither stance is good or bad. My experience, however, in living from both places at different times in my life tells me that the more liberal, open stance is the one I prefer to embrace.

Yes, we do seem to stand on some common ground here it seems. One of the founding principles of conservative ideology is, as you say, an acceptance of the status quo whenever possible. This is a very restrictive and at times dangerous position to take. I don't know if I'd like to define myself as 'Liberal' (certainly not with a capital 'L'). I'm all for pluralism though. It's a risky 'ism' to advocate however. I'm sure there are more 'truths' beyond Oliver's narrow view of human nature and the possibilities for outcomes beyond those he describes. There are certainly 'truths' beyond that of the reactionary petit-bourgeois intellectual - that we can do nothing against the relentless and evil progress of society (run as it is by a bunch of omnipotent capitalists with the morality of gangsters) except noting their superiority to it.
Having said all that, greed and selfishness do seem to be ineradicable features of our human condition. Perhaps the primary target of any government ought to be such anti-social behaviour as competitive individualism?


GB, I'm sorry my writing style confuses you. I can be a little unfocused at times and appear 'all over the place'! BTW, the sentence in itallics in the paragraph above is taken from an article on 'Realism and the Cinema' by Colin MacCabe. I thought it worked rather well here on this little drama we're playing out. Also, the final sentence was paraphrased from a book on political ideologies which I use for gathering dust. I didn't want to take credit for someone else's words! Have you more to say on the matter?

 

[genderbender]

A second dialogue continues...

… There are certainly 'truths' beyond that of the reactionary petit-bourgeois intellectual - that we can do nothing against the relentless and evil progress of society (run as it is by a bunch of omnipotent capitalists with the morality of gangsters) except noting their superiority to it.
Having said all that, greed and selfishness do seem to be ineradicable features of our human condition. Perhaps the primary target of any government ought to be such anti-social behaviour as competitive individualism?

From your comments and the time of your posts I'm imagining we're about seven time zones away from each other. That would explain your reluctance to accept the label liberal with a capital "L." In some parts of the world that label is tied to not only a political philosophy, but a political party as well. Being an American, without any such reference points I needn't split such hairs, although you may have noted above that I corrected Oliver when he called me an apologist for Democrats. I too prefer the lower case version of the word, even though I find myself with little alternative but to vote for that political party's candidates when election time roles around.

I trust the myriad circumstances that motivate some people to heatedly argue the fine points of legislation, or throw themselves into political campaigns, supporting a candidate or a particular issue. We're all bound to play out our karma. I'm past the point of believing anyone has a monopoly on truth. People find themselves on different sides of issues for incredibly complex reasons. Although I enjoy jousting with Oliver, wherever he is, I'm not such a zealot that I believe either my well-being or that of the nation is dependent on whether I "win" or "lose" a debating point. Frankly, I avoid talking with fanatics, especially on the board. As I've observed frequently, conversations with such people shed more heat than light on a subject.

This is a lengthy way of saying the comments you mention above don't grab my attention. I've no doubt that selfishness and greed exist. My response is to argue against institutionalizing it through our tax code. For that reason I disagree with Oliver over the shape of the tax cut. Between 1990 and today, even after the recent collapse of the stock market, the value of investments has gone from $3 trillion to $14 trillion. I don't think people at the upper end of the spectrum need a dramatic tax cut on top of the windfall they've already realized through their investment portfolios.

With regard to limiting "competitive individualism," we have laws that are supposed to deal with such situations, but watching the later stages of the Microsoft trial, I have little confidence in the present administration's willingness to pursue vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws. As with sentencing disparities for crack cocaine, the gold ruling our country is much more interested in prosecuting racial minorities who seek relief from grinding poverty through sale of drugs and prostitution, than in seriously pursing equally ubiquitous white collar crime. We've got our priorities straight!

Finally, I don't consider your posts as "tardy," so don't sweat the small stuff. It's nice to read your thoughts about these matters. There don't seem to be many people on the board who want to explore these issues. Though, I imagine, if I came cold to this thread, I'd probably find it daunting to plunge into all these ponderous posts. So, you're very welcome. See ya around.

 

[Ally C]

GB

Thanks for your comments. I wouldn't have bothered replying, but you never know, someone else might well have more to say on the matter! I've enjoyed following this thread. Thanks again (to you as well Oliver!).

 

[dza]

In a rather sad commentary on my own life - i think i would rather see a less civilized conversation regarding politics. oh well, i guess i'll go watch the XFL.