How is Bricker 100 per cent wrong, exactly? Idealism has always been associated with liberalism. Take your country back? (Dean) Yes we can? (Obama) A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on? (Kennedy)
These are generally of the ‘America can be better because we owe it to the little guy’ variety, whereas the Republican slogans of idealism are the social conservative kind.
Liberals seem pretty hellbent on saving people from themselves. That’s not always bad, but a quick Google shows that millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in various agencies in PA to combat obesity over the last 10 to 15 years. Yet…the rates are rising. And how many billions have we spent in the last three decades on health and nutrition? To what avail? The poorest kids in America have access to free health care and are some of the unhealthiest.
Conservatives are just a lot cheaper with their ideology. It doesn’t cost a lot to deny gays the right to same sex marriage.
Finally…when someone on the Dope doesn’t like a ‘liberal’ idea (or perhaps like the idea, but not the execution) they are quickly painted as Big Bad Meanie Heads. Oh, and cites? They’re only useful if they support your argument. Otherwise they are very flawed, or haven’t been replicated enough, or ____.
Well sure…if you ignore the cost of things like wars conservatives start under false pretenses or the cost of indigent children or ineffective bailout programs etc…
Lets us not forget the cost of lost opportunity by celebrating ignorance in the attempt to maintain bronze age fictions etc…
I think what you are talking about is a human condition more than a party condition.
The ideology? What ideology? You just characterized liberalism as a well-intentioned desire to help. And liberalism sometimes uses an organized system as a tool for problem solving. That sounds pretty straightforward rather than particularly ideological to me.
A lot of us can readily concede that the issue raised by the OP was ill-conceived, but it strikes me as fairly narrow and insignificant, not something that that’s key to demonizing liberalism in general. Citing a small example as the basis for slippery-slope reasoning plays into conservative fact-free ideology in portraying their opponents has having a far more radical agenda than they really do. It’s either being implemented imperceptibly slowly or there’s a giant conspiracy to keep it a secret, but it’s there.
It’s swell that you grant that liberals are well-intentioned when so many other conservatives will brook no positive characterization of them whatsoever. But surely there are well-intentioned liberal initiatives that have succeeded and conservative initiatives–well-intentioned or otherwise–that have failed.
I think the solution would be an approach to problem-solving with more rigorous cost-benefit analyses, and yes, less ideology. But don’t just come out against doing good.
Tax cuts ain’t cheap. Neither was the invasion of Iraq, which they thought it would spread democracy throughout the Middle East (and pay for itself).
True, but conservatives believe gays are a threat to the “fabric of society” which is worthy of a much more negative epithet than “idealism”.
In fact, it’s superstition. Indeed, I’m starting to characterize conservatives’ paranoia of all things smacking of “socialism” as a kind of secular superstition.
I do. I support the former. The former ensures that people have access to a real grocery store. The latter just puts some bananas alongside Cheetos and calls it a day.
SPEAKING OF IDEALISM, where is that old article by Madeline Albright published years ago…?
Now, I don’t think that America can spread democracy any better than I can spread peanut butter with my toes, but the intention is sweet. (Supporting democracy when it’s rising, however, is a little different.)
You do realize that is exactly what this program Bickler is complain about is exactly that, they subsidized 122 display fridges but most of the spending was on public awareness, helping connect stores with suppliers, creating a buyer pool to get prices down and healthy eating advocacy.
It is quite obvious you haven’t even visited the projects web page.
Many of these areas don’t have the lots that would support large supermarkets, and unlike in suburbia like you are use to many people do not have cars.
The corner shop is their grocery store.
They also give loans to open stores in undeserved areas.
We’ve passed through the rabbit hole for reals. This is a high-class way of saying “BLOOMBERG (D) BANS SODAS IN NYC”. Enjoy your fellow travellers at Fox.
Didn’t want to wade through the whole thread, so maybe somebody has already mentioned this, but - isn’t this exactly the sort of thing conservatives are talking about when they champion states’ rights? The “50 laboratories” concept?
So you don’t like Philadelphia’s inner city diet improvement initiative. Great, don’t move there.
It’s nice to have a debate opponent that doesn’t simply deny and refuse to answer questions, isn’t it?
Yes, I’d say that the conservative fatal flaw is the attempt to impose morality. I distinguish that from idealism for reasons that are hopefully clear.
Thanks, but it’s not entirely clear to me. Both seem to be aiming for the same thing-- a better society, with “better” being defined subjectively by both sides.
Of the rest of you – the ones of you that are not conceding that the issue raised by my OP was ill-conceived – how many of those of you are resisting that concession because I phrased it this way, because I tied it to liberalism in general? How many, in other word,s are now defending this idea precisely because it’s a general defense of liberalism?
Well-intentioned ideas that work: Public parks.
Public parks were originally intended as a tonic for the morals of the poor of the city, getting them the benefits of country living, away from the demeaning urban life. Richard Shenkman has cites in his books, but here’s another (page 10 onwards):
Public parks cost a lot of money, and, as the above report notes, began to decline in the 20th century with flagging funding. But they revived when the advantages were made clear.
Sure – that’s the “well-intentioned” part that’s shared by both.
It’s not an easy distinction to formalize, but here’s my try: “idealism” refers to a general attitude that good ideas and good people are the natural state of affairs, and merely removing obstacles will free people to make good decisions and allow good ideas to flourish.
Imposing morality is the mirror-image of that – that good decisions are not the norm, and in matters of morality, obstacles are necessary to discourage people from making bad choices.
But I still think it’s incorrect. I see that both sides take both attitudes, depending on the issue. Liberals certainly aren’t anti-law. That is, they don’t think that we need fewer laws to prevent people from doing “bad” things, whether it’s not wearing a motorcycle helmet, not killing someone, or not buying a Big Gulp. And conservatives generally want the market to sort out things in the economic sphere-- thus taking the position that free people make decisions that are best for them and for society.
As a Brit the Liberal/Conservative divide in the States always gives me problems as the words don’t have the same meaning over here but a question for Bricker:
If the prior evidence showed that such a scheme actually worked, would you be in favour of it? To generalise: should the state be spending tax money on a scheme that will improve the health of the poor?
A genuine question - I’m interested in your response. Not a “gotcha”.
This is true of conservatives as well. I’d use the exact statement you made to characterize the conservative views I’ve seen concerning abortion policy.
Anyway, I agree that green-grocer liberalism (just give them access and they’ll make the right choice) is unworkable–because it rests on a false assumption. Just providing access at a grocery store, absent any more systemic changes, will have no effect on people’s choices or their health, or at least so I’d expect.
I do wonder what studies the policy was based on, though. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe it turns out just having the stuff available does lead to measurable effects on the health of the population.
Probably not. But there, my opposition would be ideological. That is, I wouldn’t try to claim it didn’t work. I’d accept that it did, but argue that it was not the role of government to spend money like this.
