I’ve made some changes to the left-hand column of this homepage, as you may notice. Among other things, I’ve updated the “Who am I, anyway?” section to more accurately reflect current realities: my recently advanced age, my changing place of residence, my near-decision on law school, and my latest ideological musings; instead of “disaffected liberal leaning right,” I am now describing myself as “Too realistic to be a liberal, too idealistic to be a conservative, too cynical to have much faith in either ’side,’ but too passionate to stop caring.” Clunky, perhaps, but pretty accurate for where I am right now. (Perhaps I should add, “But if you really want to know where I stand on an issue, read The Economist. I always agree with them.” :)
Other changes include additional names on my list of “frequently referenced friends” and additional cats under “pets” (Sasha and Butter, of course). Also, as you can see, I moved the nycbloggers.com icon down a bit, since I’m leaving New York for the moment, and I darkened the quote box to make it stand out more.
I also added a new quote, one that I’m rather fond of. It comes from an IM conversation the other day with Andrew’s girlfriend Bea, who I took to a play in New York this summer, and who is apparently a frequent (if rather quiet) reader of BrendanLoy.com. The quote: “Quitting for Lord of the Rings, libel, solar attacks. I’ve read it all. You’re crazy, basically.” Hee hee.
|
Categories: Website News
|
November 3rd, 2003 at 2:44:46 am
You might also want to update your age, Brendan. You’re no longer a sprightly 21-year-old–at least not if I can do basic subtraction correctly. :)
November 3rd, 2003 at 2:47:48 am
Hee hee. Thanks Mike. I did notice this mistake before seeing your comment, and now I’ve fixed it, but alas, I posted too soon. :) I’ll update the post now to say so…
November 3rd, 2003 at 3:32:29 am
“my recently advanced age”, what? Dude, you’re younger than me! We’re not of advanced age!
November 3rd, 2003 at 3:36:34 am
Hmm, and yes Bea and I are actually dating, so you may want to update the “Andrew’s friend Bea” bit. And I still prefer the “disaffected liberal leaning right”; your new motto is simply a cop-out way of saying you know you should be a conservative, you just don’t have the guts to admit it yet! It’s okay Brendan, we have support groups for people like you.
November 3rd, 2003 at 3:37:30 am
No indeed, but my age “recently advanced” by one, from 21 to 22; hence “recently advanced age.” I guess I could say “recently increased age” or something, but I dunno, I couldn’t really think of a phraseology that sounded good.
November 3rd, 2003 at 10:15:51 am
The motto means nothing of the kind. It simply means that he does not properly understand the tenants of classical liberalism. Realism and pragmatism are important to us classical liberals—we hope that together we can make the world a better place it is true. But I think that is really rather the idea behind politics and government generally. You take the best of what each side has to offer and you try and build a better tomorrow. And if one idea does not work you let it go and move on. Pig headed ideology be it Conservative or Liberal is often not helpful (as is reading things out of context, or ignoring Chris’s posts—especially we proffering a rebuttal to a post that alludes to one of Chris’s posts.)
So you want to know what I think? You want to know where I really sand politically? Well, to be honest, I don’t think the heavy ideological bent that the Republican party is taking is helpful. Not to the people of the nation, not to the Nation as a whole, and not to the party itself. If the Republican party had more people like John McCain I think they wold be a lot better off, and so would the country. I don’t like the party because they are far too ideological, And I don’t like that they are attempting to force their ideology, religious or otherwise on the people of this country. Much beyond that I would direct you to the Federalist Papers by Hamilton et. al..
November 3rd, 2003 at 10:23:42 am
That’s basically how I described myself… just before I realized I was a libertarian. I’ll convert you yet. BlahahahaHAAA!
November 3rd, 2003 at 1:04:13 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, Sean, but from reading your posts, I thought you were awfully tolerant of redistribution of wealth and social welfare programs. That wouldn’t seem to be compatible with libertarianism. I know you are properly wary of government police powers, and I think you’ve shown classical libertarian values on issues like drugs, but what’s your take on federalism? Death penalty? Gun control?
Dane, I’m not sure you are a classical liberal. Brendan might be, and I’ve told him that many a time, but you seem awfully fond of unions and protectionist economic policies. I don’t think you’ve mused much on them, but isn’t your position on the environment along the lines of Sierra Club and other lefty Democrat groups? I have always thought your political ideology was FDR liberalism, which is to say Social Democratic/mixed economy/classical liberalism and democratic values fused with socialist principles.
The Founding Fathers were classical liberals, and the Republican Party’s principles are largely reflective of classical liberalism. You have to remember, conservatives want to conserve something, and so a conservative is different in ideology depending on the society he lives in. In America, which was founded on the principles and ideas of classical liberalism, this means that conservative politics is an attempt to preserve classically liberal principles as reflected in American political institutions. This is why many American conservatives including myself would be considered Liberals in many other national political systems, as opposed to Conservatives and Social Democrats and Greens.
November 3rd, 2003 at 3:26:22 pm
Andrew, that is a line of bull and I think you know that.
November 3rd, 2003 at 6:24:16 pm
I don’t know what part you thought was bull so I can’t respond. I’m guessing you’re calling bull on what American conservatism is?
Well there are attitudinal/temperamental conservatives–these are people who end up on the Right side of the spectrum by virtue of their mentality. Go far right enough and you get Reactionary. Paleo-conservatives are typically these types of conservatives, and some other examples include Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, and possibly George Will.
Then there are political conservatives, or conservatives who end up on the right by virtue of how they formulate policy and ideas. They tend to be free market lovers, strict constructionists, strong federalists, and supportive of traditional institutions and traditional concepts of religion, law, and morality because of their positive effect on the social and moral fabric of society. In this group you find William F. Buckley, Jonah Goldberg, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, as well as many of the modern so-called neo-conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.
If you studied the history of American conservatism, you’d know that pre-WWII it was very weak and divided. Classical liberals and temperamental conservatives were not aligned, and they were also split by party. Republicans tended to be strongly into classic liberal principles, while paleo-conservatives were mostly in the Democratic Party. It was the growing socialist impulse of the Democratic Party, combining with the success of the civil rights movement, which pushed paleo-conservatives into the GOP (a process that took nearly two generations but is generally believed to have started in the mid-’60s; it was helped along by the electoral strategies of Richard Nixon in ‘72 and the GOP in general in ‘94). The intellectual bridge that allowed that crossover was built by William F. Buckley and his cohorts at National Review; the coalescing principle that brought them together was strong anti-Communism. Today, the groups are barely distinguishable, which is why I stated above that American conservatism is now largely synonymous with classical liberalism.
The liberalism that I think you are laying claim to, Dane, is not so much classical liberalism, but modern FDR-style liberalism–before it veered into the New Left ideologies. This increasingly endangered ideology is best reflected by The New Republic, which might be my favorite political rag on the basis of sheer intellectualism, even though National Review and The Weekly Standard are closer to my view. Honestly though, while I could easily pencil in Brendan as a TNR-type guy (and have repeatedly suggested he check the magazine out), I don’t quite see you as being that much in the center–you’re foreign policy views are a lot more in line with the Left than FDR-type liberals. Don’t get me wrong–TNR liberals hate Bush, too, but there is something comical about their sneers, like Thomas Friedman throwing in anti-Bush lines to appease the crowd even as his argument almost completely supports the administration’s view of things. Your Bush hatred is much more at home in The American Prospect or The Nation even.
November 3rd, 2003 at 9:34:00 pm
Andrew, your second post offers quite an interesting perspective — describing what is sometimes referred to as the Dixicrat phenomenon. In addition to well some other mildly interesting perspectives. However, your first post completely ignores the realties of history. Specifically, you seem to think that the founding fathers actually agreed with one-another. This is of course bologna. Unfortunately, since you seem hell bent on misunderstanding and misconstruing just about anything a person with a political view any further to the left that your own I don’t think it much matters whether I present an actual argument or not.
Be that as it may, lets deal with the first post first. As for your statement about Sean, well you are probably correct. I find that very few people are actually libertarians when actually pressed on their beliefs.
As for the statements about classical liberalism well, that is bologna. And you should know that if you understand political theory at all. Why? Well, because classical liberalism is an exceptionally broad term. (If you had called me on using an overbroad term, or attempting to co-opt a term that applies to both parties then I would have been forced to agree to your criticism. Although, a classical liberal view tends to be what guides my determination of the right function of government) So, What is a classical liberal? Classical liberalism is concerned with individual rights, support of property rights, limited constitutional government to protect the rights of individuals. That is to say the broad overarching ideals witch were agreed upon at this nations founding. Writ simply classical liberalism embodies a Lockean notion for the correct function of government. To that end no one group or party in this nation, regardless of the time, is capable of being the embodiment of classical liberalism. One can be a classical liberal and be a Republican, a Democrat, a Liberal, or a Conservative.
If classical liberalism is such a broad term, why do I call myself one? Well it was not used as a device. It is because the concepts embodied by the Lockean notion of liberalism (note in this stuff capitalization is key—Liberalism and liberalism are two very different concepts, as are Conservatism and conservatism). That is to say those ideals that are written in the document of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and to a lesser extent the ideas written in the Declaration of Independence, and The Federalist Papers are of crucial importance to this nation and understanding what the government of it should and should not do. (Note that the Declaration, and the Papers are described as lesser only because both are extra Constitutional documents and therefore can have no direct barring on the interpretation of the Constitution itself.) So simply put the Constitution does embody many of the tenants of classical liberalism.
When the nation was young there were two parties. There was the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party. Both parties believed in the tenants of classical liberalism and came together in compromise to develop the Constitution. Although they disagreed on some specifics of governance, the overall Lockean notion of governance provided the starting point upon witch a compromise that protected both the rights of majorities and minorities could be forged.
Which brings us to the second major point of bologna in your initial post. You seem to imply that the ideology of the Founding Fathers can be writ large across all of them. Not only this but that the ideology of the Founding Fathers can be co-opted to belong entirely to one political party. To say this is sheer lunacy. To think that Jefferson and Adams, and Hamilton, and Washington, and Franklin etc. etc. etc. agreed on all things is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers disagreed (bitterly, you know duels people getting shot, friendships lost for decades type stuff, at times) over many things. Some of these things are the same disagreements that we continue to have to this day. Now, the various ideals of the two parties are shared back and forth amongst today’s modern parties. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans fully embody the ideas of ether of the original parties. Although the founding Fathers believed in classical liberalism the often did not agree with each other. No one party can have a lock on the ideas of the Founding Fathers or classical liberalism; although the people of America are capable of grate feats of cognitive distances, it is simply not possible by the vary definition of these terms. I doubt very much that there are many people in this nation that would not qualify as classical liberal to at least some extent. As I doubt there are many in this nation that would disagree with all of what Hamilton and Jefferson had to say. Like wise it is not possible to agree with all that the two of them did have to say ether.
Now the third major point of bologna in your initial post is this idea that conservatives are called conservatives because they are trying to “conserve� something. It is a nice bit of rhetoric at times, and it sort of holds for middle school civics class. But pleas try and unlearn this bit of silliness that you have been taught. This is kind of like the Federalists calling themselves federalists to make people believe that they were strong federalists when in fact their views were more in the line of ant-federalism and the ideas of the Anti-Federalists kept more in line with the ideals of federalism (don’t worry if that is a bit confusing, it was supposed to be, that was the idea of the Federalists).
So, what have we learned up until this point? Well, first, classical liberalism is a broad term. It is different that Liberalism or Conservatism. That the names of political parties, and even the monikers of Liberal and Conservative do not actually mean much, beyond what the present party platform is. And, that it might have helped Andrew if he had bothered taking a political theory class whilst he was in college.
And that is why the first post is bull, and you really should have know that it was bull, and I really should not have had to go through all of that.
Now, in your first post you also seem to think you know where I stand on a great many things. Many of these things are issues that I have never before taken a stand on in Brendan’s blog, and yet you seem to think you know them anyway. Please, Andrew, do not presume facts about others that you do not know; it serves greatly to make you look the part of an ass.
I am not a member of the Sierra Club (although they do some good things) nor am I a member of the ACLU (although they often do good things in the protection of the Bill of Rights they also have a tendency to miss understand its meaning.) I am not a Social Democrat, I am socially liberal to the point of being socially libertarian—if your actions do nothing to harm another person or impinge upon their rights I see no reason why the government should have any business legislating on the issue whatsoever. That the Government is entitled to make companies provide the best information on a product regarding its safety and other matters is sensible to help in informed decision making and prevent the transgressions of another person’s rights. And that such people as transgress the rights of others should be prosecuted is also sensible. One might argue that the environment is something that we all share and that it is irresponsible and unfair for one person to damage it at the expense of another person’s right to enjoy it—admittedly such an argument is a stretch, but not too much of one (certainly we all benefit from a cleaner environment—both Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt had such ideas.) As for FDR’s social polices, well they are a mixed bag. The necessity of the times might have required them, although their Constitutional validity is certainly suspect. And, while we are on the subject of Social Democracy, yes affirmative action is unconstitutional.
Now, lets look at the second post.
I was going to take umbrage at your political conservatives paragraph, but noted that you use a small f on federalists as opposed to the large F Federalists. (Let us leave completely out of this debate the New Federalists who, as near as I can tell are reactionaries with no solutions). The small f indicates federalists that, well actually believe in federalism. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the Federalist Party of Hamilton et. al. Which, as we all know was strongly opposed to federalism (I love naming conventions don’t you?). Which, of course means that you are leaving out Federalists, who would, of course, have much to argue with the Republican Party platform. Now, as we also know Federalists were a strong part of the founding of this Nation, upon ideas of classical liberalism (although, admittedly different from those held by the Democratic-Republicans) (Which is of course getting back into the argument about you first post.) Not all strict constructionists are Republicans (actually, strict constructionist is a bit of a sticky term, and encompasses several different ways of reading the document—although they all do focus on a textualist reading of the Constitution. The difference breaks down to what you use to define the words, and what other information you use to interpret meaning. The purist textualism would probably find the Air Force to be Unconstitutional.) However, despite some differences over naming conventions you are correct in your analysis of late twentieth century party development. There is a reason that LBJ said; I fear we have lost the south, when signing civil rights legislation.
I am not laying clam to FDR liberalism. I am saying that I agree with classical liberalism. Something that most of the entire nation believes in, although the extent to which it is a driving part of their ideology varies.
Now, I will admit that I like Process theory a bit, and Ely and Klarman both have some compelling ideas. In the end it is the Constitution, and what is written in the Constitution that matters. And that, Andrew, is the center of my political ideology. Strong federalism I, of course, disagree with based on my general agreement with the Federalist papers. As for foreign policy, well I think I have gone on quite long enough for one day. Brendan knows my view on this. Suffice that I never thought the case for war was proven, and that that issue not withstanding, the present administration’s execution of the war is quite poor.
November 4th, 2003 at 6:58:43 pm
Thanks, Andrew and Dane, for speaking for me without having a clue what you’re talking about. I’ll take over from here.
I call myself a libertarian because I believe that freedom betters the human condition. I also distrust any authority based on coercion. I trust only authority based on esteem. And I believe that diversity, both personal and cultural, is both beautiful and practical. (We can’t all very well be accountants.) But more importantly, people just know how to live their own lives better than a stranger in washington. A teacher in CT knows better how to live his life and run his classroom than an underperforming student raised in Texas. A dentist knows best how to fix a tooth, not some government overseer, whether that overseer is local or federal. Et cetera ad nauseam.
Andrew, you mistake sympathy for the Democratic Party with agreement. Never once have I advocated the redistribution of wealth. In fact, if I heard of a viable, individualistic alternative to Social Security that didn’t involve something as untrustworthy as the stock market, I’d be for that. It’s just that if the government is going to extort money from me, I’d rather they give it to charity than fund a police state and foreign wars. (Simplistic, I know, but I don’t have much time right now to expand.) I’d rather they do neither, but I’d also like to not go to jail for tax evasion.
Like any other term, there’s actually a large spectrum of people within it. I might see guns as a clear case of “harm to others,� the libertarian litmus test for government intervention, thus within the realm of regulation. Meanwhile, another libertarian might say we have to trust gun-owners. J.S. Mill, father of libertarianism according to some, thought the government should determine who may and may not reproduce. I disagree wholeheartedly. Anarchists also call themselves libertarians. I think limited government is okay, so long as it concentrates on violent offenders. I might say that life imprisonment is cheaper and offers closure to the victims’ families sooner, aside from assuring that the State will never execute an innocent person, while another might say that’s it’s a good deterrent to violent offenders. We can all make these arguments and have them work within the framework of libertarianism.
Any other questions?
November 5th, 2003 at 9:51:19 am
Sean, point made. But how do you fell about the police and fire departments?
November 5th, 2003 at 1:09:03 pm
I like police departments, especially if they concentrate on violent offenders. I’m just not sure about giving the NPD new air conditioners.
Fire departments… the only model I know is the NFD, a volunteer company. I’m pretty sure that means that the Town of Newington does not fund them. If I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
So, it seems we can fight fire without the government. Even if I’m wrong, I’d say, yeah, I’m pretty sure fire counts as “harm to others.” :-)
November 5th, 2003 at 10:50:09 pm
What’s wrong with the stock market? It may fluctuate year-to-year or month-to-month, but over a period of, say, forty or fifty years (a reasonable number of years one would expect to be in the workforce, contributing to SSA), the stock market shows a steady increase at a better percentage than most other investments.
But if we convert Social Security to private accounts, a very libertarian goal I would think, what would be wrong with that? If you’re scared of the stock market, then invest in government bonds instead. It’s quite simple really. The individual is totally capable of planning for his or her retirement, so what’s wrong with that?
Same with Medicare–why have it? Why don’t we have Medical Savings Accounts instead, with the tax money that would go to Medicare going instead to our own accounts and investments, which we can roll over or use in a consumer-driven system where we can choose our doctors and services and drugs (generic or otherwise) as we wish–with a doc’s prescription of course. Libertarian theory would seem to support that policy solution too, no?
November 5th, 2003 at 11:33:51 pm
Specifically, you seem to think that the founding fathers actually agreed with one-another…. To think that Jefferson and Adams, and Hamilton, and Washington, and Franklin etc. etc. etc. agreed on all things is ridiculous.
I made no such claim. I am fully cognizant of the philosophical differences of the Founding Fathers. However, I also do not think those differences are as sharp as you make them out to be. In the context of the Founding, sure, they were huge, but in today’s political context, they are all minor disagreements operating within the classical liberal/strict constructionist paradigm.
You seem to understand the clinical definition of classical liberalism, but you are mistaken as to how it applies to the current political context. Current Democratic Party politics is much influenced by socialist/democratic socialist policy. Progressive taxation, centralized government social welfare programs like Medicare, Social Security, and AFDC, government raiding property under the guise of “environmental protection”–a collectivist notion if there ever was one, completely antithetical to classical liberalism’s respect for individualism and property rights–all of these have socialist, collectivist roots. Unions likewise are a heavily socialist-influenced phenomenon. Likewise public schooling, and heavy government regulation of enterprise. Let’s also not leave out the concept of the Constitution as an “evolving” document, combined with judicial activism. Now, you can argue that these concepts and programs that are elemental to the Democratic Party platform can be made to work within a classical liberal’s paradigm of good government, but I and any Republican would argue these examples are far from being run in a manner that is respectful of the classical liberal notions of individual rights, free markets, limited constitutional government, and property rights. That is why I make the argument that modern conservatives and Republicans in general are the guarantors of classical liberal principles.
As far as the Liberal and Conservative labels go, these are virtually meaningless in contemporary American political discourse because of how everything’s evolved. Socialists and democratic socialists (what we’d call them everywhere else in the world, also grouped under Labor parties) are now known as liberals in American society. Radical Greens, Anarchists, and Marxists are generally referred to as the Left. Conservatives generally are either paleo-conservatives or classical liberals. Many Republicans, like myself, are more libertarian-leaning conservatives. Neo-conservatives tend to use what can be considered leftist dialectics to arrive at classically liberal/conservative conclusions.
Look Dane, you are clearly American in your use of these political labels. What you need to do to gain clarity is say, if I was in France or Italy, what party would I vote for? I’d be damned if you didn’t end up voting for a Labor, Socialist, or Social Democratic party. The Liberal parties in Europe are very weak, and they most closely resemble the Republican Party here (the word “Liberal” in Europe retains the classical liberal definition). Sometimes Conservative parties abroad conform to Republican Party principles here, but a quick study of France will show you why that is very often not the case. Germany also has a plethora of parties that are helpful to the discussion.
Some more historical notes: Federalists were known as Federalists because they supported a strong federal government, as opposed to a weak one similar to what was engendered by the Articles of Confederation. Anti-federalists liked the weak federal government of the Articles, for the most part, and did their best to make sure the new federal gov’t under the Constitution had strict limits on power. Of course, that changed in a flash when Jefferson became president. The Federalists morphed into the Whigs, which was more of a Tory party in mentality, supporting a strong military, a strong industrial base, and protectionist trade policies. They died out eventually and mostly morphed into the Republican Party. The Democrats did a lot better with the free trade, federalism, and individualism stuff, except when it came to slavery. Later, the Democrats began to diverge: Northern Democrats grew more Progressive, incorporating union-friendly beliefs, socialism, and later radical left ideologies (now the latter is almost completely the case), while the Southern Dems maintained the paleo-conservative mentality and a strong affinity for tradition, religion, and strict constitutional gov’t. The Republicans started as a strong Union (as in keeping the country united) party, and later became one focused most intently on business and trade interests. That is much the same, except they’ve largely been amalgamated by Southern conservatives.
All that aside, suppose I grant that you really are a liberal in the classical sense of the word. Most of what I have read from you is (vehement) disagreement with Bush’s foreign policy. You’ve also been highly critical of much of his domestic policies–specifically, you loathed his “tax cuts for the rich”, did you not? These arguments betray a leftist mentality, if not a leftist political ideology. As you put it, you love “process”, and the Left is consumed with process. But really, some of your opinions aren’t much different than the standard Left/Democrat positions. You’re mostly pro-U.N. (in other words, pro-giving France veto power over U.S. foreign policy) and largely isolationist. You prefer progressive taxation to flat taxation. You decry the Republican approach to environment and education, which is to pay greater respect to property rights, individual rights, constitutional rights (such as freedom of religion), and free markets. In sum, you really don’t sound like a very good classical liberal to me, if indeed you really are one.
November 6th, 2003 at 10:41:53 am
As for party labels. Well of course I am going to use American referenced party labels. And I think you have me confused with a different part of the Democratic party. As I may have you confused with a different part of the Republican Party. See, I am over here in one of the “Big Red” states (well not so much “big” anymore” but one of the original 13, and of those it was pretty big. . . So I’ll go with calling it a “Big Red” but not a “BIG Red”) And see, over here in the South the Republican Party is a bit different than it is perhaps where you are located. Unfortunately it is the people in eh BIG Red and Big Red states that steer the party and not the ones in the light Blue, or perhaps BIG Blue I am not sure of your particular geographical location.
Be that as it may, the things is, the Big Red Republicans have a different agenda that you appear to profess. I think around here, if you studied the issues you might think again about voting Republican. The party here is not about.
see you say, “You decry the Republican approach to environment and education, which is to pay greater respect to property rights, individual rights, constitutional rights (such as freedom of religion), and free markets. In sum, you really don’t sound like a very good classical liberal to me, if indeed you really are one.” but see, around here that is not what the Republican party is about. They are about Guns, Pick Up Trucks and you Better believe in my God or I’ll shoot you and I don’t give a rats but about what religion you are if it ain’t mine. And while were at it let ban Harry Potter and is Damn devil worship and get God back in schools by teaching creationism and putting a big hunk of marble in them with the ten commandments. And we don’t care about what other counties think. We gonna shoot stuff if it suits us, but otherwise we are going to be a bunch of isolationist morons and burn as much damn coal as we damn well please.
Andrew, I am not an Isolationist. I also don’t think we should go around attacking other nations for the hell of it. The UN is good because it helps us form a broad coalition of nations to get big things done. It is a channel for diplomatic discussion at a world wide level. I think not wanting to be part of the UN is isolationist. Just like ignoring other countries and being a piss ant to them and unilaterally going to war is, well, kind o isolationist.
Now, What I said. . . if you read closely, is that while Process Theory is compelling, I think that the single most important thing when interrupting what the Constitution says and means is the Constitution. Any decision on Constitutional grounds must be firmly based on the Constitution and NOTHING else. So, Andrew, I ask you this: “Is the United States Air Force Constitutional?” if you are indeed a strict constructionist you will say No, it is not Constitutional. If you say yes you are in fact a Translationailist.
In the UN France does not Veto US Foreign policy they Veto international foreign policy (ie they don’t let the US dictate their policy just as we don’t let them dictate ours) We are still free to do what we like. But the UN provides a forum for working with people of like minds on an issue (and a way to park illegally in NYC).
However, you are right. The one issue that I think is the single most important issue in this country today is Education. Educating the young people of this nation is the most important thing we can do. To insure the long term veracity of the economy, the long term competitiveness of US products, and to help fight poverty. I don’t believe in welfare, I believe in education to fight the need for it. I don’t believe in building more prisons, I believe in education to fight the need for them. I don’t believe in affirmative action, I believe in education to eliminate the need for it. I do believe that there is an elite in this country, and I believe in education to help every member become a part of that elite and live up to the the best of their personal ability. And then it does not matter how many manufacturing jobs we ship over seas. We don’t need them when the people of this country have the intelligence and skills in demand that can be found no where else. But if there is one thing that government should do to promote the general welfare it is to help insure that every child in this nation gets a world class education. And that is what I believe. and that is why I am a Democrat. Because the Republicans are for programs and projects to weaken the school system in this nation. And we don’t need to weaken it we need to straighten it to make it stronger, to make it the best school system in the world. And we need to teach every student (not just the ones that don’t drop out) If we are going to “leave no child behind” than we must live up to that promise and teach every child what they need to know to contribute to this society. Giving students more standardized tests (some, like the ones I took in highs school with erroneous answers on them) written by politicians that serve no useful purpose does not really help when they are not designed to measure the gains they make over a year. What good is it to test teachers only at the end of the year with no control variable at the begging? How do we know how much progress the teacher helped the student make?
In the end, it is education and not all the other policies of government that will make the nation better and insure the strength of the economy
November 6th, 2003 at 10:54:35 am
Hmm, that sounds a lot more Jeffersonian than Hamiltonian. So, Jeffersonian Education and the Federalist papers I suppose.
By the way, the Articles of Confederation provided for an insanely week federal government. Almost a UN of colonies more than a actual Federal government.
Hamilton is right though. You need a strong Federal government to do things that the states Can’t or won’t on their own.
November 6th, 2003 at 2:56:26 pm
Dane, I live in Orange County, CA–the Reddest County in the biggest Blue State.
Dane, I’ll be honest with you: redneck southerners driving pick-up trucks with gun racks are not my crowd, either. But they don’t scare me. They are not violent people; they won’t shoot you for not being Christian, unless you break into their house to announce your un-Christian-ness. I do not mind Creation Science being taught alongside Evolution in schools because I’ve read a lot of Creation Science theory, and while a lot of it is unsubstantiated, much of it makes more sense than Evolution to me, which is also highly unsubstantiated (I’m talking macro-evolution here, not micro-evolution–creation science accepts the concept of micro-evolution, or evolution within species). Both are theories, explanations for origins, and they both have strong points and weak points. And how does it harm anyone to have the Ten Commandments in schools? Whoop-de-do, if it makes ‘em happy, let ‘em do it. Finally, let the market decide whether coal or natural gas or nuclear power is the best option. New technologies actually allow for burning coal very cleanly now, but the EPA’s system of regulations discourages older plants from switching over to newer technologies.
Dane, what the hell has the UN ever done that could count as “[getting] things done”? Where has the UN ever succeeded in maintaining peace between nations, except when the U.S. has pretty much gone in and done most or all of the work itself? You are right about one thing: the UN is a great tool to get away with illegal parking in NYC.
The Constitution doesn’t mention an Air Force, so you’re right Dane, we can’t have an Air Force. Oh wait, it doesn’t mention steamboats either, so I guess Congress can’t use steamboats to transport mail up and down the Mississippi. This is ludicrous–the Constitution was not meant to anticipate technological innovation. The Constitution could not anticipate this concept of “abortion” as a highly medical procedure that could be made (relatively) safe and effective. Should SCOTUS have then determined that abortions are unconstitutional? No. Should they have determined that women have a right to abortion via a “right to privacy”? No. SCOTUS should have instead said, this is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitution to decide, so therefore let Congress/the states legislate on the matter. Same with the Air Force–it’s up to Congress to decide if we want an Air Force.How can we improve education when the system deters competition and accountability? We don’t need a world class education system–we need world class schools. How to get them? Break apart the teachers’ unions, make it easier to fire tenured teachers and professors, relax the standards and certification requirements for becoming a teacher, connect teachers’ salaries to academic progress, move funding to the county and city level, maintain curriculum requirements on the state level but give the local districts the leeway to meet them any way they wish, and allow the money to follow the students instead of going directly to the school districts so if parents want their kids to go to a charter or parochial school, they can do that. Those kinds of changes would greatly enable teachers and administrators to deliver a better product: a better educated pupil. This would also return control of education back to the parents, teachers, and school administrators, rather then educrats and politicians.
November 6th, 2003 at 2:58:31 pm
Why is it–this is like the 5th time–that when I do my last paragraph break, I somehow make it an italics command instead? Argh!