Actually both of your analogies are my point exactly... A plane is actually always pointed straight, sure it might be flying in one direction or another. If you are flying south and you want to go East, you don't pull a u turn and aim directly north, no infact you go at an angle that best puts you back on course. The aint thing is exactly the same, if it's too dark you lighten it, but you don't go from one extreme to the other otherwise chances are you will again need to repaint as it is now too light.
No, there's a major difference between our analogies. Your analogies imply that the new direction will completely replace the old one, as though nothing carries over. My analogies imply pulling away from the current course. It wouldn't be a "U-turn" or a "white paint replacing black paint." It will be pulling left on the yoke of plane veering right or adding white paint to a wall that is getting too dark. The new doesn't replace the old, it modifies what is already there and brings it back to center.
Then we agree completely. I was referring to you saying you hope Obama goes as left wing as Bush has gone right wing.
Something tells me what Minstrel's "center" is, isn't the same as my "center". Therefore, this is all a silly semantic debate as our centers are a personal opinion. But allowing the political spectrum to comprise the current Congress and Administration, it's impossible to say that Barack Obama wouldn't be on the farthest left fringe of his party. Even Bernie Sanders hasn't had that kind of dogma to the left.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about too. If the plane has been pulled X to right, it should be pulled back X to the left. Since we're not starting from a blank slate (all of what Bush has don is where we'll start), Obama being as left-wing as Bush was right-wing will pull the nation back to the center.
It's a ridiculous proposition to claim Obama is as left-leaning as Bush is right leaning. Compassionate Conservatism has a strongly left-wing element. Those of us who believe in a more limited government aren't represented at all.
If you use only the current Congress and Administration, then yes, Obama is quite to the left. However, as far as I'm concerned, the current Congress and Administration are more to the right of center and the "farthest left" is left-center. To put it in statistical terms, the mean is right of center and the variance isn't very large. Being "the most left" in a party that is centrist when it comes to the mainstream faction doesn't say much. Dennis Kucinich and Carole Mosley-Braun are much more left-leaning than Obama, for example. It isn't even close. But they're not very mainstream within the centrist Democratic party and thus get essentially no support.
I don't even know what you're talking about. I said I hope he is, as President, not that he is. "Compassionate conservatism" was a buzzword in the 2000 election to appeal to independents. It's not a real thing. There's nothing "compassionate" about Bush's politically ideology. Yes, Bush isn't about limited government. The Republican party hasn't been about limited government since Barry Goldwater. The main difference between us is that you seem to care most about financial issues, while I care most about social issues. Bush is not a financial conservative, but he's very, very much a social conservative.
However, the 535 people that comprise the Congress are a statistically robust representation of the views expressed by the population of this country. The problem is that the House is currently led by a Representative from one of the farthest-left constituencies in the country. That fact drives policy eminating from that body. As for the Executive, I can't recall a single President that would so close to being an outlier as Obama would on either side since George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater (on the right) in 1964. If I wanted to live in Western Europe, I could move there again. I prefer something different.
That's pretty amusing, since I remember that being said about every Democratic nominee since Clinton, by conservatives. Apparently, to conservatives, anyone left of Bill Clinton is a fringe socialist. I prefer there to be some political variety, some mix of right-wing American politics and left-wing European politics.
I speak for myself. Please don't lump me in with others simply to make a point. Al Gore ran to the left of Clinton, but one look at his record would have shown that he would have governed much like him. John Kerry was feckless. He didn't have the backbone to have a political philosophy beyond winning the next election. Yep, different strokes for different folks. So which parts of "right-wing American politics" do you like? Which parts of "left-wing European politics" strike your fancy?
Sorry, you're right. It's just that the group I'm talking politics with seems to be different every election, but similar themes come up. It has nothing to do with you, but I am struck by how every election cycle, conservatives I'm discussing with say some variation of, "Well, [current Democratic candidate] is the most left-leaning candidate I can remember in eons." I'm a big believer in capitalism. While my political opponents may find that surprising, some may recall that, in basketball, I always argue against artificial restraints in the CBA that limit what players can earn. That is me arguing against free market constraints like the salary cap, max contracts, restricted free agency, rookie slot-based salaries, barring high schoolers from playing in the NBA. It always surprises me how I seem to be on the left end of the US political spectrum, yet I seem to be the most ardent free market supporter when it comes to professional sports. I also think the US is better in terms of freedom of expression. I was quite amazed by the fact that in parts of Europe, Holocaust deniers can be jailed. I think Holocaust denial is both intellectually bankrupt and loathsome, but I can't imagine people not having the right to state their beliefs, dumb as I (and most people) may think them. However, the core of my belief is that there should be equality of opportunity. To clear up misunderstandings before they arise, I am not for equality of results. I am not a communist. People should be able to rise and fall on their own merits. But the playing field should absolutely be level in order for such a merit-based system to exist. It's hardly reasonable to run a race where some contestants start a mile ahead of the others and then laud the winners for "rising on their own merits." But in our system, that's exactly the situation when some people start with middle class or higher backgrounds, with the attendant benefits like better education, better developmental environment and better post-high school opportunities and some people start with the disadvantages attendant upon being born in ghettos or trailer parks. Therefore, I don't believe "wealth redistribution" (a tenet of socialism) is an unfair thing. There is absolutely a logical justification for it, not just a "forced compassion" justification. Nothing in a free market comes for nothing, yet we consider an enormous economic headstart exempt from that. I don't think that's reasonable. Wealth redistribution (nowhere near enough to change the economic status of the most-taxed, so not a hindrance to incentive to excel) is simply payment for those enormous differences in opportunity. Further, it's a recognition that the wealth isn't generated alone. Take the best businessperson on Earth and put him/her on a desert island. They will make no money and end up with no luxuries. Capitalism requires a society, and an underclass, in order for the wealthy to earn their money. It's not at all unreasonable that they pay money into that society that allows them to prosper. Yes, I approve of such things on grounds of compassion, but I don't think it is only coherent in the context of compassion. I think it is also fair and logical. So to return to your question about what in European politics attracts me, I think they do wealth redistribution better than the US. Universal health care, free university education for anyone, social welfare that allows everyone at least a minimum, human standard of living (clean place to live, food and clothes). And Western Europe has no problems with innovation or with pumping out strong economies. The EU's economy is greater than the US' (to compare entities of vaguely similar size). Hopefully, that was what you were looking for. I'd be happy to clarify anything that struck you as unclear. I'm always happy to relay where I stand (if I feel I know enough on an issue to hold a position) and what my commentary is rooted in.
Minstrel I get what you are saying about a minimum standard of living, but there is one flaw you can't force people to live higher than their means. In my line of work I often do bids for Housing projects. There is one consistent requirement for the bids the product has to be the sturdiest strongest of it's type on the market. Why is that? Because the tenants thrash it, which to me shows that they lack appreciation for the aide they receive, in their minds they are still the victim and therefore they act victimized, and lash out at the very people that try to help them. Too many of our social programs simply give people fish.I have an Aunt and she and 3 of her 5 adult children live entirely off welfare. Several years ago I offered her a receptionist position at my company, she was unemployed at the time. I told her that her responsibilities would simply be answering the phones and transferring calls, and she could knit (her favorite pass time) all day long if she wanted. She declined as her asthma would make it too difficult to perform her job. I then offered her a job doing some minor data entry and clerical (filing, sorting etc..etc...) work around the office, she declined on account of her carpal tunnel. I stopped offering. 2 months later she called my dad and asked for money so her daughter wouldn't get evicted from her apartment. The scary thing is this pattern of behavior gets passed on and the next generation assumes that this is how life is lived. One of her sons stays employed just long enough to claim unemployment or get injured on the job (it's happened a minimum of 5 times). I don't have a problem leveling the playing field at all, but that playing field has to be a different one than the one that is being played on now, and frankly it's a long long long road to hoe and we will never see a resolution in our life span. It all starts with educating people about what they are capable of, and it continues with breaking the cycle of welfare.
I agree. But if someone is drowning now, even if the life preserver isn't a far-reaching, permanent solution, it still needs to be used until the person can be lifted entirely out of the water (which, returning back to the real world, means changing the culture of poverty...safer living conditions from violence and better education, for example). Changing that culture is, as you said, a long road and won't be accomplished soon. In the mean time, it's not acceptable to let people drown, IMO.
BTW I just want to point out that I personally think the bailout is necessary. I guess we could hoe that the ship would right itself, but frankly I don't think we want to find out for sure, because if it doesn't, you know what they say, the bigger they are the harder they fall. IOW without the bailout we could theoretically be staring down the barrel of complete economic collapse. I personally don't want to know how ugly that might be. The economy is already a scary place right now, the scarier it gets the less people spend the more companies go under the more people lose work the more mortgages default, the more bad loans and properties banks sit on etc...etc... Now with that said this also could be the start of a wonderful period of economic growth for the US, but it's going to take some entrepreneurs that recognize some of the niche opportunities that will present themselves. Economy + Environment = Localization oportunites
Yeah but is it acceptable to take the drowning man out of the water and put him back in a boat with a hole in it? Absolutely not because then you simply have to throw him the preserver again. Right now that's kinda the way things happen. Now if you were to fix the hole in the boat and teach the man to swim that in the long run is more effective, as long as he is willing to learn. Welfare is too easy.
Agreed. Both need to happen. You need to fix the boat and save the people already in the soup. Not bothering to fix the boat creates waste.
Just a little more fuel for the fire. IMHO the state of the economy and the need for a bailout, are the results of 30+ years of moving away from US Industry. People used to boast "Made in the USA" as a statement of quality, and the price would support that notion, but the competitive overseas quality wasn't enough less to justify the cost of US made products in most cases. It was also used in an "Anti Anyone else" kind of tone. What was missed though is the economic impact, at least missed by the larger part of the population. All that has mattered is $$$. The mega Corp has deeply damaged our economy which is a vicious cycle. Let's look at WalMart. this particular store has actually suggested (wink wink) that companies shift manufacturing to foreign soil. As a result US plants downsize, people lose work and are on tighter budgets, so now they shop at.... WalMart. But it's not just walmart, it's Target, Home Depot, Best Buy etc..etc.. the list goes on and on and on. When US products are purchased that money goes into US Wallets, which is then spent in US stores. Go to any large store, Toys R Us for example, now find a product that is made in the USA that isn't a candy product. Do the same at WalMart, Target, anywhere. then think about how many billions of dollars we are pumping out of the US economy. Are there any countries pumping billions back to us?
