Aspiration Versus Individualization----Two Competing Views On Our Nation's Future
Our national divide has evolved over the past twenty five to thirty years. The fissures that separate us are expanding and deepening. It is almost as if we are two nations battling over the land we share and which we are all interdependent upon. We battle over policy; we demean one another on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity; we even place "derogatory: labels on each other.
In the eyes of those who differ from me, I could be called a socialist, a Jew, a Communist sympathizer, a "liberal nut job", a naïve fool who never gave up his 60s idealism, or an inflexible ideologue. Those on the other side are often called Fascists, Nazis, bigots, right wing nuts, greedy individualists, or stubborn cavemen.
In the spirit of truth, all of the invectives have a measure of truth, and they all have at least an equal measure of lies. The debate is not what we want {for most of us, our hoped for outcomes are remarkably similar} or whether we love our nation. It is a debate over the break in the road and how we get to the re-merging of the fork. What is it that we really disagree with?
How do we see each other? What do we believe? What are our hopes and dreams for this nation? I can only write with certainty about my views. I believe strongly that my views match up well with those who are left of center. The list that I'm going to expound is a liberal one. I invite my conservative or rightist colleagues to talk about how their road to the end of the line differs from mine. I am writing about this without accusation. I am hoping to start a real dialogue between those of us whose views are different from one another. This is how I see the left fork working and the issues that are truly important to me {it is not a comprehensive list, because I could write a dissertation on this subject}.
- TAXATION: Like every other American, I have my moments when complaints about taxing are part of my dialogue. Everyone hurts as April 15th rolls around. But just like everyone else, I pony up my fair share. I realize that my taxes pay for critical services {police, fire, education, infrastructure, military, and the provision of services to those in more need than I. Given that I have the luxury of having a higher income than many of my peers, I believe that I should pay taxes at a higher percentage than my less fortunate brethren. The tax system is set up so that those who earn more will always have more money than those who earn less. Wealth always remains wealth. For those of us on the left, there is a somewhat redistributive nature to taxation. Ultimately, however, liberals generally agree that wealth is good, poverty is bad. Those with wealth have a responsibility to those in poverty.
- IMMIGRATION: Rhetoric is not an immigration philosophy. Liberals want comprehensive immigration reform as much as any conservative. The problem is how this immigration reform must occur. Campaign promises to build a wall is a reversion to the past. There are much newer, more effective means of controlling our borders, whether the northern or the southern border. We have 25 million either undocumented immigrants or those whose documentation has run out. These situations include our DACA children and young adults and thousands upon thousands of University students. Liberals want to see major immigration reform which includes a humane and effective way to move the undocumented toward a path to green cards. We want to see effective policing of our borders, including drones, additional border agents, fencing, and, yes, even a wall where it is more efficient. We also need a humanitarian way of providing asylum to families attempting to enter the United States. Immigration reform should be a high priority for the nation.
- EDUCATION: One of the most basic of innovations that have made the United States a shining beacon of light in the world has been the provision of a free and equal public education for all. This has been done by separating the public from the private and religious schools. Every family could either opt into the free system or move into the private system with the parents assuming the cost of private education. The past 40 years have turned our educational programs on their ears. We have become advocates of vouchers for private and parochial schools and of an endless array of community charters. Funds travel with children and every child that leaves the public school takes money away from public school services. Why is this the case? A school district has to fund a teacher whether the teacher has 25 or 40 students. The specialties are funded on rations from 1:2 all the way to 1: 400. As students leave the public school, specialists who used to be able to maintain their time in a single school now has to travel to 2 to 4 schools. This leads to less time specialists can spend with their students. Liberals believe that schools should be treated equally and children in the inner city should have as complete and competitive an education as students in rich suburban schools or those in private or parochial schools. We complain about generational poverty, but, in reality, we suborn that generational poverty by providing unequal education to large swaths of our school children.
- RELIGIOUS, SEXUAL, AND RACIAL EQUALITY: Most Americans of good will believe that all people are created equal and all should be treated equally and without prejudice. Pay should always be equal for equal work whether the recipient is male, female, or transgender. All individuals should be treated in a common manner regardless of sexual orientation, the amount of melanin in their skin, or the religion they follow {even if they don't follow any}. Every person should be allowed to serve his/her country. Every person should be able to live in whatever neighborhood they wish. To this end, we must condemn those who associate policy differences with anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Black and Brown, or anti-LGBTQ attitudes. None of these are policy issues. Just two simple examples: You can disagree with American unwavering support for Israel without being anti-Semitic. You can object to the scandals in the Catholic church without being anti-Catholic.
- A NON-POLITICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: We have lost the understanding that court appointments should be non-political. It is now almost a totally political process in choosing and moving judge nominees through the confirmation process. One of the most important checks and balances on our entire political system is that the judiciary should be non-political and act as a check and balance on the other two portions of government {which were designed to be political}. I don't know the solution to this problem, but a liberal concept is the fork in the road here should be to determine how we can get equal justice for all.
I haven't spoken about foreign policy or a myriad of other issues that face us as Americans. The five that I mention here will hopefully get an intelligent discussion started. What would the right fork do with these issues? Would the left fork take us in directions that are different from what I'm espousing.
No name calling, no denigration of those with other views than your own. Let's see where this goes.
Tags
Who is online
239 visitors
Let's try to get a really civil discussion going here. We have differing views, but let's respect where we each come from.
Those with wealth have a responsibility to those in poverty.
No they don't, other than to pay their "fair share" of taxes.
There are much newer, more effective means of controlling our borders, whether the northern or the southern border
Well, what are they? The Democrats know that some kind of barrier is part and parcel of that whole package, so why not fund a decent amount for that fraction? Any immigrant already in the US and "Dreamers" needs to be put on a fast track to citizen ship. The border should be closed to all who have criminal records, don't have acceptable work skills, don't have some economic resources, and those in ill health. That's going back to the Ellis Island way
One of the most basic of innovations that have made the United States a shining beacon of light in the world has been the provision of a free and equal public education for all.
In this day and age quality education in the PUBLIC SCHOOLS has gone pretty much astray. The kids are literally fed left wing propaganda from the very beginning reaching a peak in the college years. Parents should have a choice of where their kids go to school and vouchers should be available for all options, including private schools.
Most Americans of good will believe that all people are created equal and all should be treated equally and without prejudice.
Totally agree, but that is what the ideal utopian world would look like. Humans being imperfect as they are, I doubt they will ever evolve to that level....what I would call the Roddenberry view of the Universe.
We have lost the understanding that court appointments should be non-political. It is now almost a totally political process in choosing and moving judge nominees through the confirmation process.
Ideally, that should be the case. The law interpreted correctly and applied fairly. However, it has never been that way in my lifetime, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
There is not a single person in this country {unless they are pathological liars}, who doesn't feel that there are times where our tax burden goes beyond our "fair share". Unfortunately, there is no solution to this conundrum. Taxes are necessary for our government to function and provide those services which are necessary. We can talk about policies at a later time. I don't want to pay a 90% rate on income, as was done in the 1950s. I do believe that current taxation policy is counter to national needs. Tax reform should not be reverse enrichment. Instead of moving tax burdens from the rich to the poor {who are not able to pay current rates}, we should be working toward a more distributive {oops,,,a socialist word} system. A fairer way of doing tax reform would be to lower the marginal rates at about 1% a year while raising the top rates at approximately the same rate. If a plan was instituted using this type of system, taxes would always have more money coming in than going out. The amount of tax change should be capped at 5 to 8 percent. Those of us who are in upper tax brackets can afford these types of rate changes.
On the immigration issue, we are not that far apart. As far as immigration being a complex package, some of the innovations are simple, e.g. use of drones, increases in border patrols, increased number of immigration justices. Higher level interventions could include infra red detection, sophisticated radar, etc. We must also develop more methods of catching illegals at the ports of entry and a greater effort to catch drug dealers, human traffickers and other lawbreakers at those official points of entries. We also have to have our congress develop a clearer form of protection for asylum, with reviews every 3 to 5 years.
The education issue is and has been a greased pig. Blanket statements do not work here. Most notably, public education outperforms voucher or charter schools in private or religious schools in the areas of math and science. The verbal areas of testing are not significantly different. Public Schools outperform vouchers and charter programs in all areas of the curriculum. Charter schools don't work in the rural parts of the country because of the distance needed to travel to and from these schools. We complain about how the public schools have decreased in effectiveness. There is no doubt that this is true in some cases, but the solution has to be innovation at the public school level with adequate supervision of those programs. Poor performing schools need staff, money, and innovation. Use of video teaching of courses not offered in the public school, or self paced education should be attempted.
You are right that both total equality and the role of the judiciary are aspirational. Just because we don't have them yet {or maybe not in the foreseeable future}, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for them. Both would be great steps forward for our society.
Pretty sure that those two words don't mean what you think they do.
The divide isn't primarily political. That's just one aspect.
The divide is between those who follow their leaders, and those who decide their own path.
Politics, religion, ...
I contend that the divide is the result of growing conflict between individualism and collectivism (not to be confused with the Socialist collective).
Individualism is easier for us to understand since we are all individuals. And we generally agree that individual freedoms involve the ability to go where we want, do what we want, and say what we want (as examples).
Collectivism is a somewhat more difficult concept. A society is a collective made up of individuals living with each other; which is the fundamental definition of collectivism. That doesn't have anything to do with economics, politics, or propaganda. Individuals gather into a society to obtain collective freedoms. Some examples of collective freedoms would be freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from crime, freedom from conflict. Only a society can provide those types of collective freedoms and that's why humans live in societies.
A society subsumes the individual with a requirement for conformity. An individual exercising their freedoms to go, do, or say as they choose does not need the consent of the individual. However, an individual exercising those freedoms depends upon the consent of others in society to avoid infringing on the collective freedoms from fear, want, crime, conflict, etc.
increasing individual freedoms impose more limits on collective freedoms. And increasing collective freedoms impose more limits on individual freedoms. That's the source of the conflict.
Since Ronald Reagan became President, the political rhetoric of both parties have emphasized individual freedoms. Stating that 'government is the problem' is a declaration that societal limitations on individual freedom is the problem. The politics of both parties have endeavored to weaken the collective freedoms from fear, want, crime, and conflict that only a society can provide.
All the political arguments over the major issues have become a conflict between individualism and collectivism. When one party emphasizes individualism the other party emphasizes collectivism. And both parties are inconsistent in their stance across all the issues. Republicans argue for greater individual freedom concerning taxes. Democrats argue for greater individual freedom concerning immigration.
The demands to increase individual freedoms are in direct conflict with calls to come together as one nation. We cannot have both. If we are to be one nation then it will be necessary to accept limitations on individual freedoms. If we cannot accept limitations on individual freedoms then we cannot be one nation. That's the choice that must be confronted.
Seems to me the only way to avoid coercion is to obtain consent. The political system of the United States is based upon the consent of the majority obtained by voting.
The problem is that the majority in the United States is not monolithic. The majority is different in different parts of the country. The majority in one part of the country may consent to limitations on individual freedoms that would be unacceptable to the majority in other parts of the country. So attempting to govern as though the majority is monolithic throughout the country cannot avoid coercion.
The United States does not have a single government. There is the national government, state governments, county governments, and city governments. IMO to avoid coercion as much as possible it is necessary to respect the choices made by the majority at the lowest level of government.
The estimable late PM of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, said that the great discovery of the West was not democracy, but civil rights.
Decisions may be made democratically. That's easy. It's limiting those decisions that's tricky.
The decision making process can be equipped with rumble strips: qualified majorities, successive votes, programed delays, and so on. But something must exist to protect the minority, above and beyond all that. Civil rights.
A minority at the national level is not a minority everywhere in the United States.
The argument being made is actually very conservative. The conservative view is that both individual freedoms and civil liberties are subordinate to a higher authority. The higher authority may include things like traditions, historical precedent, and moral principles. The conservative view is that higher authority must be allowed to impose limits on civil liberties and individual freedoms without consent.
Not being a conservative (to say the least), I don't know if that's accurate. I find it shocking.
The fundamental idea of "rights" is that they are innate, intrinsic to humanness. There may be no infringement on "rights"... except by other rights.
Being innate means that neither individuals or society are the source of rights; individuals or society does not grant rights. Innate rights are granted by a higher authority and that higher authority is inviolate. The higher authority could be God, nature, tradition, historical precedent, moral principles, etc. The conservative view is that the higher authority takes precedent over individual freedoms and civil liberties.
As an example, a woman's right choose is not an innate right, that is a right granted by society and is only made possible by human intervention. A right to life is an innate right granted by a higher authority and that higher authority is inviolate. The conservative view is that the innate right to life granted by a higher authority takes precedent over a woman's right choose granted by society.
No. Innate rights are not granted by anyone. They are innate....
Society does not "grant" these rights... but does "recognize" them... or not.
What is or is not an innate right is a subject for debate, but the characteristics of innate rights are not.
That is correct. The source of innate rights is some higher authority above and beyond individuals or society. The higher authority is inviolate; therefore, rights provided by that source are inviolate.
Not all rights are innate. Society does grant certain rights.
If the argument is that the individual is the source of innate rights that allow individual freedoms then the argument devolves into a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
No.
There is no source. They are a part of being a person.
Pretty sure that there is no such thing as "rights" in the real world unless you can pay for them.
If rights are a part of being human then humans are the source of rights. That inevitably leads to a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
The idea of innate rights was the great contribution of America's Founding Fathers.
Authoritarians will always try to deny the existence of innate rights, so those of us who believe in human dignity will always be required to defend them.
Only in the sense that humans are the "source" of bone marrow, muscles, lungs, ...
What is your definition of each of these words? I suspect that the topic is more semantic than real.
Then the source of innate rights is nature that allowed evolution to culminate in the human species. That means innate rights are an inviolate authority above and beyond individuals or society. Individuals and society are subordinate to the higher authority of innate rights. That is a conservative viewpoint.
I provided that in comment 4 -- located here . Yeah, I screwed up when making comment 6; I meant it to be a reply under comment 4.
From nature, from evolution, from fate, from luck, from God. Pick whichever higher authority you wish. The point of the definition is that innate rights are not created, endowed, or granted by individuals or by society or by government.
Innate rights is the conservative viewpoint.
... is not in love definition.
In lieu of a distinguished, known higher authority to inform us, how do we (human beings) know which rights are innate?
So, choose a different authority.
That doesn't change the fact that innate rights come from some other source than individuals or society. The concept of innate rights denotes that individuals or society did not create, endow, or grant those rights.
Of course reality is made up of many shades of gray. No one is absolutely liberal, progressive, or conservative; people hold a mix of attitudes and beliefs depending upon specific situations. While admittedly overly condensed and generalized, the differences between liberals, progressives, and conservatives can generally be characterized as follows:
1. Liberals emphasize individual freedom and either interpret individual rights or endow individual rights to increase individual freedom. Individual rights and freedoms supersede society and authority.
2. Progressives emphasize liberty (freedoms provided by a society) and either interpret or endow rights to increase collective freedom. Liberty (collective freedoms) supersede individual rights and freedoms (requiring conformity) and supersedes authority.
3. Conservatives emphasize innate rights and freedoms established by an inviolate higher (or ethical/moral) authority. Established ethics and morality supersedes individual rights and freedoms and supersedes liberty. Both individuals and society are required to conform to the innate ethics and morality established by an inviolate higher authority.
No! For the last time, innate rights do "not come" from anywhere. They are innate.
Then innate rights came into being with the Big Bang. Innate rights cannot be altered just as the speed of light cannot be altered.
That's a very conservative viewpoint.
Nerm, my question ...
... is serious.
There is no 'in lieu of'. Within the context of any single authority, the ethics/morality is inviolate. It's the paradox of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. That's why there has been so much conflict throughout history over who or what is the ethical/moral authority.
Innate rights are a function of each authority? What are considered innate rates by one authority might be different than the innate rights under another?
Correct.
I agree.
This is why the federal government should have less power and the states more so that we can all live where our preferred rules have power yet we are still one federal republic. So if Texas wants more pure capitalism and New York wants a variation of socialism both could do so without coercion of the other.
I'm all in for a civil discussion.
Taxation: The critical idea here is "fair share". I would argue that you probably pay a bit more than your fair share. There are over 100 million Americans who pay nothing. I'm not advocating a flat tax or anything, but IMO "some income" should precipitate "some tax".
Immigration: It's a mess and it needs a fix. Comprehensive immigration reform could very well include a wall. It can't be limited to that, but the two ideas are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Education: You absolutely cannot pin the ridiculous state of our public education system on vouchers. The entire education structure in this country has been steadily lowering minimum standards for decades. We've been rubber stamping illiterates with diplomas and we are now rubber stamping college kids with degrees that mean nothing. Liberals claim to believe education should be equal, but the rich ones all send their kids to private schools while allowing standards to continually slide.
Pay should always be equal for equal work: This is a massive oversimplification. Pay should be whatever the employer and employee agree upon. All employees doing the same job are not the same. All college degrees are not the same. I have a Harvard graduate working for me. He does not get paid the same as other people doing similar work. Experienced employees make more than rookies. There are soooooo many variations that "equal pay for equal work" is just a fantasy.
To this end, we must condemn those who: No....we need to stop condemning. That's how we got here. People are entitled to their opinions....even the politically incorrect ones. When liberals go around in ceaseless outrage condemning anybody who dares question hard core left ideology, they're picking a fight. They don't realize that although public figures frequently cower in the face of that mob, regular Americans do not. We don't give a crap how angry they are. They don't get to tell people how to think.
A NON-POLITICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: We had two women accuse Brett Kavanaugh, and then later admit they lied about it. So I'm not sure how we get to "equal justice for all" when so many people on both sides of the spectrum make up their minds about justice based on cultural identity or politics.
in a word? Ideology
and yes, there is no middle ground to be found.
capitalism - vs - socialism
place your bets, all my chips are on red and am lettin it ride.
cheers
Pretty sure it is not the black or white you envision. Think varying shades of gray.
shades of grey are for people who hedge their bets or wish to deceive others
I'm not one of them.
Our nations future?
World wide human die off wont help this planet.
But hey I'm all for socialism as long as I can keep my guns.