Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A few additional late night points (over tylenol and insomnia).
First, I agree wholeheartedly that Republicans have outspent the Democrats. I have a vague recollection of David Stockton, Reagan's budget director, saying the government should not be bailing out troubled farmers in the early '80's. If memory serves, Stockton was caricatured as an extremist and a hater, and driven out of government. Since that time, I don't think true small government conservatism has really had a chance. Kind of like the '94 elections in response to national health care. The country seems to like things the way they are: low taxes, relatively high spending on existing programs only, and deficits. Trouble is, those deficits are catching up with us; we're now up to $200 Billion annually in interest payments alone.
By the way, I did not mean to suggest 90% of my politics is abortion. I meant to say 90% equals (i) my preference that government not get any bigger and (ii) opposition to abortion on demand. I think 1,000,000 abortions per year, or whatever the number is, is absolutely appalling, and I blame young women for this -- especially those who know something about birth control and make no reasonable effort to use it. I have said before I don't know what specific policies I would favor if Roe were overturned (some of the things you mention might make sense), but I am very confident from my reading of constitutional law that dissenters are correct in saying such a right does not exist. You have to start somewhere: getting the thing overturned in step one. Although, it isn't going to happen now, which I freely concede. I'm not even all that upset with the courts. The people, through Congress and the states, could amend the constitution should they choose to protect fetal life. We the People choose not to do so. Again, I think it's a travesty, but there is nothing I can do to stop it.
As for Sarah Palin, and the female vote, I can't make any predictions. I don't think the Democratic party will lose in 2012 anyway; since 1916, a newly elected party failed only once to hold its place, and that was with Jimmy Carter. History favors re-election, the first time out. If I were her, I would do exactly what she's doing: let it be known you are interested, but leave yourself an opt out.
And as for the financial meltdown, gee, I really don't care. I would let the banks go bankrupt. The economy is cyclical. We were destined for a downturn at some point, and this is it. I feel sorry for anyone who loses their job temporarily, but we have much better unemployment insurance programs, and general prosperity to support people in need, than in the past. The less we spend on bogus, politically motivated bailouts -- both corporate and individual -- with borrowed money from overseas, the better. We have to take a long view of this for once, as a country. Perpetual borrowing is not good for us.
Finally, I would offer a slight dissent on the issue of competence. It's true, Iraq has been mismanaged. But look at Vietnam, spearheaded by whiz kid Bob McNamara along with liberalism's best and brightest. Those guys screwed up far worse than Bush. On Katrina, conventional wisdom is that Republicans had their least fine hour. But if so, why did Louisiana throw out their Huey Long-o-crats in favor of a very young Republican running on a "clean" platform? I think it's a mixed bag.
Like I said, I don't favor Palin because I think she is incompetent, and would muck up the federal government. That's early 80's thinking, where some Reaganites hoped deficit spending would break the back of support for liberal programs. Rather, I compare her to Angela Merkel because Merkel, as a center right politician, presides over a country with very large tax and spend structures compared to ours, and is not a "movement" economic conservative any more than Palin. Palin strikes me as a competent state administrator, and I assume she could do the same at the federal level.
You asked earlier what Palin's platform would be. How about, "No, we can't" -- in response to "Yes, we can." Every time the government says "no," my budget for Christmas presents, family vacations, and other enjoyments says a corresponding, upward "yes." I love to hear the word "no" from Washington. It's postively optimistic, to my ear.
We needn't worry about whether Obama will govern as a centrist or a leftist: there's no longer much of a chasm between the two. Consider the issues: End torture and close Guantanomo. Enact a massive jobs/public works program. Greatly extend (if not universalize) access to health care. End the war in Iraq. Get serious about global warming. Raise taxes on the rich. Over the past four years, these proposals have gone from unthinkable to radical to mainstream, and they're now at the center of the new president's agenda.
To be sure, there are some items on the left's agenda that may remain on the shelf for some time to come: a serious de-escalation of US military presence abroad; a systematic rethinking of the "war on drugs"; gay marriage & an end to DADT. A far greater commitment to global development. But overall, this is a moment for the left to savor; more importantly, it's a moment to act.
but I must be sleeping since I thought that you said you blamed young American women for the uncommonly rate of abortion in this country.
You must have anticipated these caveats I would have with that:
1. You say abortion is a contitutional issue...determined by the supreme court in roe v. wade, no less. How many young women supreme court justices are there? Really? That many? Next point...
2. Has there ever been a young woman able to avail herself of abortion services without help (at least once) from a young man? Men have access to birth control too...condoms...no? they don't always work, but as conservatives like to say, abstinence does. any man who is against abortion has the option of not have sex with a woman who he believes will be likely to have an abortion. Having a good relationship with the young woman, an open line of communication, and planning in advance to raise a family together are helpful tools that can empower him and them to avoid the abortion situation.
3. You don't address the fact that there are equal numbers of young women in Europe. And legalized abortion in Europe. And yet abortion numbers are lower than here. Young women are not your serious answer to my question, why do Americans have more abortions than Europeans with access to legalized abortions do? Unless you can prove a shortage of European young women, in comparison with the United States, your answer makes little sense.
And, you don't address my suggested answer which is that the U.S. has gone down a bad path with some of the abstinence only sex ed programs which have contributed to the highest rate of teen age pregnancy and STD infection rate in the "first" world...I suggest that maybe there are more abortions in the U.S. because there is more overall unprotected sex among teen agers here...
I appreciate your analysis of the Vietnam war era...but that's before my time. I do remember reading though that Richard Nixon campaigned on the promise that he would end the war in Vietnam and it took him well toward the end of his second term to fulfill that promise...I guess compared to some of the new conservatives, he could be called liberals' best and brightest, but it's a bit of a stretch.
I'm a pragmatist who doesn't fully embrace any particular ideology, but my tendency is to believe that the strong are less in need of the protections of government than the weak. I actually share your dislike of deficits...but I'm afraid I can't be quite as savoir faire as you are about the economic failing of banks and crashing of economic systems (as economists conservative and liberal are speaking about). Do you have a form of independent income that keeps you safe from all storms? I don't. I've worked between one and two jobs all of my life. David Brooks essay in the New York Times writes movingly about the dangers of this recession and the biggest one that I remember is diminished expectations. This might be the way it affects me, and it might be the way it affects my friends and contemporaries....funny that this past era is already being described as a gilded age...but it wasn't gilded for everyone. I guess some of that wealth grabbing just wasn't a part of my world.
and I could be laid off from my job as early as January...depending on how things go. I feel less que sera about it...whether or not what they are doing will save the economy I'm not sure. But I understand the urge to do something, because the suffering for a lot of people will not be only in their heads, to quote a certain conservative economist, phil gramm...and keynsian economics is preferable to a depression like the 1930's...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
