My problem with Liberals...

Great Debates
1

Full disclosure - I lean libertarian. Before anybody goes hog wild attacking me, I do not believe in “libertaria”…I would just like to see less (not zero) government involvement in pretty much every aspect of our lives. Between the two big parties in the US, I lean Democrat because I care more about social freedoms than economic ones. Now onto the rest of the post…

Liberal people, in general (obviously not everyone), seem to want the government to do more, and be more involved in our day to day lives. If I bring up how government, at least the federal government, doesn’t seem to do much right, they always blame the error on a Republican administration. The thing is, that is exactly what I am saying…Republicans are a part of government, so even if you blame all of our problems on republican policies, you really have not addressed my point that we would be better off with less government involvement since republicans, and their policies, are part of the government.

For example, my liberal father in law blames the downfall of Social Security on Reagan. Whether or not he is correct is not a debate I am interested in. The point is that Reagan was part of the government…the exact thing I am saying we need less of. If the government was not involved in the first place, Reagan could not have screwed it up.

Basically it boils down to this - Liberals want more government involvement, but only if it comes from a Democratic administration, but given our two party system, the Republicans are not going anywhere, so that is not a realistic option.

2

But it does plenty of things right.

They also exist outside of the government. So if a government screw up is due to the Republicans, privatizing that government function won’t keep a Republican private citizen from doing the same thing.

And if Reagan had nuked New York it wouldn’t have suffered the 9-11 attacks. You don’t fix the problems with a program by destroying it. “Government is imperfect, so let’s condemn to poor to starve !” is not an acceptable solution.

3

My problem with Conservativese

Conservative people, in general (obviously not everyone), seem to want the government to do more, and be more involved in our day to day lives.

Basically it boils down to this - Conservatives want more government involvement, but only if it comes from a Republican administration, but given our two party system, the Democrats are not going anywhere, so that is not a realistic option.

Hey, this is fun!

Since we’re dealing with overbroad generalities that have little relevance, I think the distinction that needs to be made is not More v. Less government, but rather WHAT that government does. It seems to me that Conservatives want MORE government involvement in things like keeping sodomy illegal, making sure gays can’t marry, wiretapping US citizens, a stronger military presence, making sure less illegal immigrants get jobs, telling women what they can do with their bodies, etc. I think the LIBERALS = MORE GOVERNMENT; CONSERVATIVES = LESS doesn’t really hold true. It all depends on the issue. Sure Conservatives want less governmental regulation of industry, but they want more regulation of our personal lives and our “morality”. And Liberals want more regulation of industry, but less government in personal lives. I think we should be debating the rightness of the actions of the government instead of drawing overbroad generalities that serve little to no purpose.

4

No, it does not boil down to that. The whole “big government” boogie-person is a chimera, a distraction. I don’t much care how “big” government is or isn’t, so long as we, the people, control it.

And the really big, important things can only be done by really big institutions, with all the inherent problems of such. The City Council of Buttscratch, Montana, could not have fought WWII. Civil rights in Misssissippi were not going to be advanced by Mississippi.

Big change means big power being asserted. Just be jealous and wary, and be sure the power remains with us.

5

Social Security has worked through at least two market crashes. Without Social Security, lots of people who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time and retiring in the past year or so would be completely, utterly fucked right now. I don’t really understand what people mean when they say “the downfall of Social Security”. Are they talking about a hypothetical future Social Security?

6

First, I don’t know why your father-in-law blames Reagan. Social Security in the '80s had demographic problems; Reagan formed a commission that came up with a pragmatic solution - temporary, sure, but pretty effective. Reagan was far more flexible then conservatives today.

Liberals may seem to always want more government involvement when viewed against conservatives who always want less, because they feel the market will always come up with the best solution by definition. Liberals see cases where people are suffering because of market failures, or where the market drives itself over a cliff, and wish to use the government to make things better. The reason conservatism is so unpopular today is that its solutions have been found impractical and unrealistic. Their response seems to be that even the slightest piece of government involvement ruins everything, which people aren’t buying.

7

I think we disagree on this.

That is a good point, but I would say in many cases a republican citizen could adopt a republican type policy for themselves, but they would not be forcing it on everyone who would like to adopt a more democratic policy in their own lives. Obviously this does not work for every issue, so on some things a middle ground would have to be reached. I think having the hands of government in everything for so long now has polarized the populace so much. I think with less government involvement people would be more willing to work together to arrive at a middle of the road solution on those types of issues.

I am not advocating allowing the poor to starve. I am advocating a different way to go about feeding the poor. I would rather instill a sense of responsibility in people to take care of each other than instill a sense that the government has it under control when they clearly do not.

8

I agree with this. I would like less involvement from both parties…especially people trying to ram their conservative social agendas down my throat.

9

I am not sure what i think about this. In one sense I agree…if we are going to have government involvement i would like it to be controlled by the people. However, given that the country seems to be close to a 50/50 split republican/democrat, i don’t think a lot of people get the sense that they are in control of the government. I think, for me, a preferable situation would be for people to control themselves. I think giving state and local governments more power would be a step in the right direction. People are more willing to work towards a consensus with their neighbors than someone 1000 miles away.

10

I’m just a plain, old-fashioned liberal, but I have seen examples of the same split that you mention here. Many of my fellows seem to think that if the government would just make a law, we could easily end cigarette smoking, force people to eat healthy diets, establish racial and gender equality in all organizations, make people invest their money properly, cure all environmental ills, promote scientific research, and establish a wonderful health care system. Yet at the same time, we all know perfectly well that while the Republicans were in power, they used that power to reward political cronies, pile up pork-barrel spending, spread destructive things such as ethanol, give contracts in reward for campaign contributions, screw up our schools, and promote warfare and militarism. Moreover, the more honest among us know that there are many Democrats who will use their newfound power to do the same things, though corruption won’t reach nearly the same scale as it did under the Republicans.

Why the difference? What makes anyone think that government intervention now will be just and fair, when it never has been in the past? I think it’s a little bit of denial and cognitive dissonance (we just can’t accept how thoroughly corrupt our government is) mixed with a emotional concern about problems overriding rational judgment of solutions.

11

No, instead you would have more tyranny. It’s government involvement that makes most such “middle of the road solutions” possible, by preventing powerful private groups and individuals from simply imposing their desires.

Which means you are advocating for the poor to starve, whether you mean to or not. The government stepped in because the government is willing and able to do the job; private citizens long ago proved they aren’t. They had literally thousands of years to step up to the plate, and didn’t.

I also fail to see why having private citizens do it is superior.

12

I think this is a big one for me. The idea that if people aren’t getting what they need, we need to turn to the government immediately does not sit well with me. I do not think it is a choice between get the government involved, or allow the problems to persist. I think a third option is to raise public awareness of the issue and give people some time to work on private solutions to the problem. Maybe the government could get involved in raising awareness of the issue, but they don’t need to immediately jump in head first without giving us a chance to figure things out on our own.

13

So you agree with Hamlet’s argument that conservatives want big government just as much as liberals do (although for different things), and yet you started a thread criticizing only liberals for wanting big government. Interesting.

14

This is the most trivial part of his point. Of course I didn’t expect this to go any differently. All people care about is the trivial hypocrisy and not a person’s argument. That’s why partisan discussions are so tedious.

It’s amazing how many people don’t get beyond, ‘You do it too!’, by the time they are like 15.

15

Regarding the notion of government not usually getting things right, I’m going to bring up two examples of good government. These are areas in which I have experience.

The two examples are going to cause many people to laugh, swear, and make incredulous faces. Ready?

**The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and public education. **

Done pointing and laughing? Good, here we go.

I’m a professional pilot. That being the case, I can gripe about the FAA with the best of them. There are lots of places where I don’t agree with them, and think there should be changes.

But…

I must admit that the FAA gets the job done. I don’t always agree with HOW they do it, but I believe it’s a fact that we have the safest air system in the world. That’s especially true when you consider the volume of traffic.

Sometimes inefficient? Often beaurocratic in a heavy-handed manner? Definitely. But those are details, and I work to change them. Looking at the big picture, the FAA accomplishes its mission. It’s government that works, and I’m glad it’s there.

Before I was a pilot I was a teacher, and it’s pretty much the same story there. I disagree with a lot of details of how we educate. But in the larger sense public education accomplishes a huge goal: It has to take all comers, and gives them a fairly good experience on the whole.

Both the FAA and public education could not do what they do without government involvement. As much as I’d like to make serious changes in both, their existence does not give support to the idea that government involvement is a bad thing in those areas.

I’m not opposed to private schools, and I’d like the FAA to modernize in some ways. But I definitely believe public education and the FAA serve a purpose, and in the larger sense, serve it well.

16

First, the people typically don’t have the power or the resources; that’s part of the point of a government. Second, in the case of acute problems having to start from scratch means that “the people” will likely be to late to solve whatever it is. And third, why even bother ? The government is there, why not use it ? You are like someone insisting that we must pound nails with a screwdriver, even though a hammer is right at hand because you have an ideological objection to hammers.

17

Mach Tuck I can accept the FAA, but I am far more skeptical about education.

18

I guess I should say Federal government involvement. I think giving more power to state and local governments would be a step in the right direction. As I said in a post above, I think the people have become more divided as a result of Federal government actions. I think scaling it down a bit would help get everyone on the same path while giving people more direct control over their lives. As I said, I think people are more willing to come to a consensus with their neighbors than with someone 1000 miles away.

I am not. Times change. It was harder to raise awareness of social issues back in the day. So maybe government involvement was necessary then, but I do not think it needs to continue.

I think there are several reasons:

  1. I think people should feel a sense of personal responsibility to take care of one another. having the government do it strips people of that responsibility. Sure, you can still help in other ways, but you will never be fully responsible.

  2. Forcing people to help with social problems by making them pay taxes might help the problem (though that is debatable), but it doesn’t help the bigger issue, which is that people should want to help other people, not be forced to. The government treats the symptoms of problems, not the problems themselves. It is sort of like if you force a kid to say “thank you”, or “I am sorry”, without them ever understanding why.

19

I do not want big government from liberals or conservatives. And believe me, I am not a republican supporter. In fact i even said that if forced to choose between the two parties I would go democrat. Amongst the circle that I run in, the liberal people I know always jump to government involvement right away. You are correct though, I could pretty much reverse my OP, but my point still stands:

Whether you are Dem or Pub, you only want the government to be involved when it is your party in power. That is why I think it is funny to ever advocate for government involvement because your party will never always be in power.

20

Well, what if I do feel personally responsible for taking care of others, and I think that government is the best tool for the job, at least in some cases?

It always seems to come down to taxes with conservatives. I have a hard time taking at face value the statement that “if only we didn’t have to pay taxes, we’d be so generous that all social problems would be solved.” History says otherwise.