http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html
Should not everyone?
This puts me in mind of this old chestnut:
I think we need some new terms. I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I think that conservative may not apply even with the fiscal qualifier. I had a teacher once who claimed to be an “Unrepentant Capitalist”. That has always sounded good to me.
The problem with the 2 definitions of liberal in your quote is that they both miss the mark. If liberals were really “unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar”, they would not care how much we spend on the military. If on the otherhand, liberals were only “someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs,” They would not be so invariably attached to state sponsored means to show this caring.
Well, the problem I have with that type of liberal is the “care” part. Liberals “care” about other people’s health and housing so much that they feel the must take my money to do something about it. I care about these things, too. I give money and time freely to certain charities to do something about social ills. And I make sure those charities are focused on actually achieving results, not just dumping money down a sinkhole. If I’m unwilling to force others to do something about it, does that mean I don’t “care”?
It means that you care more about taxation than other peoples health and housing.
I think that almost everybody cares about that stuff. Its just that when people have to make sacrifices for it is when people find they have other more important things to worry about.
Great quote BrotherCadfael, where is it from?
I’m going to make an assumption from you post that my not be corect. Please feel free to riducle me if I make an incorrect one.
I assume you mean that if you do not want tases used to effect changes in peoples health and housing you care more about taxes being lower than you do about health and housing being better. I hope I understood you correctly.
I think the same argument can be made in the other direction. Demonstrations that our “war on poverty” is a dismal failure abound. The proposal that we need to find other solutions is neither uncaring nor unreasonable. In fact, the other porposal that we simply need higher taxes may be said to be both. Given this “liberal” propensity to rely on taxes to the exclusion of everything else one might say that liberals care more about higher taxes than they do about improving health or housing.
Hmm. I don’t see anything in Reeder’s definition about blaming Bush for everything.
Why is it your money? Because society says so. You have gained “your” money entirely within the cradle of society. Without society you would have nothing. Here’s an idea. Go and get a memoryectomy to remove any and all knowledge you have gained within society ( including speech and logic ) and travel naked and cross-country ( to avoid using society’s roads ) to the wilderness and anything you build there will be yours. If you choose to remain and enjoy the benefits of society then quit whining about having to pay a share of the costs of society.
According to Bartelby’s, the correct attribution is unknown, though Googling turns up many attributions to various members of Congress over the years.
It’s also the first thing I thought of when I read the OP.
Historically, charities have done a piss-poor job of handling hunger and homelessness on a national level. So you’re apparently willing to put up with a lot of hunger and homelessness because solving the problem doesn’t meet with your ideologically-approved methods. So, yes, it means you don’t care. What else could it mean?
Well there is classic liberalism of Locke and Hobbs, that believes the government is only to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. You could add to keep its citizens from being exploited also.
You don’t serious expect me to just take your word on that, do you?
But actually, I think local charities are a better way to go anyway. I have an aversion to large organizations when small ones are available for the same task. Less chance for corruption and bloated overheard. Hunger and homelessness are better adressed at the local level.
You seem to be assuming that unless I’m St Francis and give up all my worldly posessions, that I don’t care. I do what I can, and am surprised you’d insult me for the effort I put in. So be it. But anyone can spend other people’s money and say “See how much I care”. I’m unimpressed.
Please. The social contract we live under does not say anything about all things not expressly given to individuals are witheld by the state. Our society is based on the principles of freedom. Not statist sillyness like this.
The rest of your post relies on the idea that society makes clothes, invented language, and builds roads. this is absurd on its face. Individuals do each and every one of these things. They do so in exchange for values provided by other individuals. Give up on the idea that society is anything but a way to talk about a particular group of individuals. The grouping does not confer powers on its leaders which have not been granted by the individuals. Its government of the people, byt the people and for the people. Not of the society for society.
I’m going to get flamed here for sure. To my mind, ‘liberal’ always meant 'money is no object…results don’t matter…waste is irrelevent…we are doing it for the GOOD of the people!"
I look at the incredible waste that happens from the ‘liberal’ factions and sometimes it makes me sick. What could we, as a society, do with say all the money wasted on trying to block the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste program in Nevada, for instance? Billions have been wasted (and will CONTINUE to be wasted)…and for what? We HAVE to dispose of the waste…its got to go somewhere. Wishful thinking won’t make it just disappear. Good intentions won’t protect it or make it safer. And I even think that the folks opposing it (the smarter ones) KNOW that its a waste…eventually it WILL happen, it has too. So, all that money down the drain for nothing.
How about the billions wasted on trying to BUILD a nuclear power plant, say. Or a new dam or an observatory. Or just about ANY large project these days. Hell, even building a new over pass here in NM had huge overruns (guess who paid them??) because someone noticed that it might impact a certain kind of squirl. What could we, as society, have done with those billions wasted…and the billions and billions that will continue to be wasted. Fund REAL social programs? Have a decent education for our children that we might actually be happy to send our kids too? Help re-train or re-educate people that have lost their jobs with the tech bubble bursting?
Then I look at the incredible waste in our social programs. In our school system. In health care. And I think, how can we just keep pouring the money in and not expect…not DEMAND…some kind of results. In our every day lives we would never pour money away like that with expecting SOME kind of results.
I know its not all the ‘liberals’. I know they aren’t the only ones that waste OUR money. ‘Conservatives’ waste our money as well, no doubt about it…maybe we should say ‘politicians’. However, the worst abuses, at least in my own mind, have almost always come from the well intentioned ‘liberals’, who don’t demand results for their programs, who don’t count the costs…because they are doing it for the good of the people. And, I suspect, to get votes too, if we are being realistic about it.
For myself, I don’t have a problem with paying high taxes to fund social programs that will help my fellow citizens…I would even go so far as to say I would be willing to pay MORE taxes. The qualifier is, the programs have to WORK, they have to SHOW that they are working.
I don’t think that charities are the whole answer (though I also give generously to ones that I research and keep track of). However, from my perspective, if you don’t demand from a program some tangible results, if you don’t demand from them some kind of cost to benifit analysis, if you don’t demand from them a verifiable plan on how the program in question will move forward, will progress, with milestones and quantify-able measurements of success…well, if you don’t do that, you are just pissing away ALL of our moneys…and to no real results.
So, I guess I go in the ‘uncaring’ faction too, as I would DEMAND such things…if I could.
-XT
nah, Reeder, youre a conservative.
Heh. By that meaningless definition, Bush is liberal. He has an agenda for childrens’ public education and pushed for and achieved a massive new mandate to enforce it, complete with huge new public spending. He ushered through an entire new entitlement for seniors. He’s going it alone, sticking to his principals in our foreign policy, convinced that his is the right way and throwing out the old way of doing things to get it accomplished. And in true liberal tradition, he’s letting the next generation worry about how to pay for it all.
The two are mutually exclusive, else how do you pay for liberal social programs on a fiscally conservative budget? Perhaps you meant socially libertarian?
emarkp - Ask Tony Blair.
It’s tired folks, this right vs. left, narrow, dogmatic view of the world belongs to the Cold War era.
On this, the US is way behind Europe.
Issue-by-issue pragmatism seems to be the flavour of the new century.
No, I meant that socially people should be allowed to do what they want. So, for instance I am in favor of gay marriage and abortion typically considered liberal positions. Fiscally I am in favor of very small government. So I am in favor of cutting spending on welfare programs typical conservative positions.
Unfortunately both “liberal” and “conservative” have been coopted by groups not necessarily in sync with the older definitions of those words. So it is necessary to qualify those issues on which I am liberal and those on which I am conservative.