What does it really mean to be labeled conservative, liberal, progressive, right wing, left wing, libertarian, TEA Party Patriot, Marxist, socialist, communist, etc? These are all stereotypical labels that say little about the individual and a great deal about the assumed ideological principles. Senator Johnson’s broad brush of derision of liberalism, equating it ultimately to socialism, Marxism and communism, is more than a bit disingenuous and was only used to inflame the passions of those in attendance. If Senator Johnson was pressed to share the details of his statement, he would probably be hard pressed to even define the foundation principles of the liberal ideology.
As with all ideologies, there are the principles of foundation from which that ideology grows and flourishes. Liberalism is no different. A central principle is the principle of Social Justice. The idea of social justice incorporates the highly held American value of Equal Opportunity. How equal opportunity is defined and limited is the first point of contention between conservatives and liberals.
Although in principle, all are created equal, this is far from actuality when one looks at the circumstances of birth. From the onset, the “accident of birth” phenomenon is the single one element that initially creates unequal opportunity. Some are born into abject poverty; some are born into unlimited wealth and every condition in between. That which makes opportunity unequal can be the non elements of wealth or wealth distribution; but physical and mental dysfunction, social structure inequities, race, religion, location, familial SES, economic structures, political system, etc; all will contribute to the condition of unequal opportunity. The modern liberal agenda and ideology is the commitment to the elimination of the conditions that lead to unequal opportunity and create a state of the “level playing field”. This is precisely the point where ideologies divide. What is the definition of a level playing field? How does one know when a level playing field has been created? What are the actions and revenues that must be invested to create the level playing field? When does it stop being the creation of a level playing field and when it becomes a state of guaranteeing outcomes? These are all the fundamental questions that are debated back and forth.
With the long history of racism in our culture and society, it becomes a challenge to overcome the obstacle that race plays in creating the equal opportunity. Hence, we have legislated mechanisms that compensate for the obstacles created by those not completely assimilated due to race. This has been and continues to be a very contentious issue, but seems to be consistent with our commitment to social justice and the creation of the level playing field. American society has had to seek similar solutions for others who find structural obstacles to the level playing field. Females, LGBTQ, and persons with physical and mental disabilities have required legislative intervention to equal the playing field to exercise opportunity.
Yet another element of creating equal opportunity is found in providing and assuring survival and security needs. Liberal ideology is committed to assuring that everyone has access to clean water, adequate sanitation, healthy food, clothing, adequate shelter, healthcare and education. No one can pursue any opportunity as long as they are faced with a deficit of the most basic human needs. We, as a civilized society, have mandated that all citizens should have access to these fundamental needs. This has necessarily become an important part of government. There is no one single entity that can guarantee that basic needs are met, other than the government. Another basic function of government is to provide for basic security.
Individual security must be maintained to have a stable and orderly society. Coupled with basic survival needs, security ranks next in importance. A commitment to providing a safe environment and to remove elements from society that threaten the safety of individuals and groups is of a high priority. Only when society can guarantee a basic level of security can opportunity be truly equal to all.
To provide the revenues necessary to fund the primary function of government to eliminate the obstacles leading to the level playing field, it is necessary that members of society should contribute to the general effort based on the ability to contribute. The progressive tax system represents the best model for accomplishing the adequate funding necessary. The liberal ideology finds this to be inherently fair since those with a greater ability to pay, gain a greater advantage and benefit from the social system. This is more accurately reflected in calling this an advantage tax. It is basic human nature to assure one’s permanent advantage for themselves and their progeny by accumulating wealth and power. The inequity of advantage and assurance of opportunity success for the advantaged can and should be offset with additional contribution, by percentage, to meet the needs of the less fortunate. In this case, sharing is the opportunity cost that leads to higher social stability and opportunity, leading to greater gain.
The right and the left both are focused on providing a stable and orderly society. Both are committed to the value of equal opportunity. However, what separates the two ideologies is at what point has the level playing field been achieved. Conservatives tend to set the bar lower than the liberals. Liberals are specific in what their expectations are for meeting the basic safety and survival needs of all. The debate will continue on.
I agree 100% that there's a bell curve, however, I don't believe the curve is as large as it appears that you do with people's intellectual abilities. The real question that needs to be answered is what part of the bell curve needs to be supported to meet the most basic needs of survival. That's really the argument, isn't it? We need to provide for those that absolutely cannot provide for themselves. Those that choose not to provide for themselves, for whatever reason, are the issue that seems not go go away.
Some people work harder are smarter are luckier have better parents...the notion that the government COULD or SHOULD change that is absurd. Again show me an example where your Utopian society works.
A high speed train to Bankruptcy is not utopia. Massive unemployment is not utopia Government dependency is not utopia. Having bureaucrats run your life down to the size of your soda is not utopia. But I do appreciate your perspective. You happen to draw a distinct view of the world. Others need to choose for themselves.
Example: A family with an earned income of $15,000 in addition to SSI benefits, gets a tax refund of $10,000. Aid for Dependent Children is also available as part of SSDI. If a child has medical and or emotional problems, the child qualifies. If a parent qualifies for disability payments from SS, then dependent children qualify. I have heard of kids with ADHD getting a monthly check from SS, tell me this is not a form of welfare. These programs are not sustainable unless there is a reduction of fraud. I have no problem supporting someone who rightfully deserves it. I do have a problem with people who use a Questcard to buy top cut steaks and groceries, while I am paying my own way buying ground beef and rice to stretch a meatloaf. Then the same couple using the Questcard load the groceries in an Escallade with spinners while I load my ten year old Chevy. There was a time when the poor people on assistance did not have the luxuries working people did- today the people on entitlements have more luxuries than the working people. Is this a great Country?
You know as well as anyone that we are one of the least homogenous of those countries, so the comparison is incommensurable. However, immigrants in our country are among the most upwardly mobile populations on the planet. So who isn't upwardly mobile in our country? The answer to that question brings us back to the problem that you are faced with every time you bring up the topic. You might as well embrace that problem now, since you have in the past. In fact, you made a great observation about the maladaptive behavior of NBA players not being resolved once they won life's lottery. The plight of the poor populations in the US will never be solved by giving them more money than is necessary to give them the basic necessities. As long as similar people group together and socialize one another, they will keep turning out a product similar to themselves.
Mr Ruble that is the silliest and most stupid thing you have ever said. And that is saying a lot. Quadgraphics started how? Apple Computers? I could list people and corporations that started out in rags and are now in riches. You sir are a petty envious oldster who has apparently never amounted to anything so you trash this great nation.
Keep fighting the good fight Alfie!
These issues are complex. Lyle is twice as smart as any liberal that posts on the Patch. Right now he is doing the typical liberal thing and trying to extinguish an emotion by throwing money at it. I am confident , however, that reason will prevail, because Lyle is simply too superior to take the simplistic lefty angle. Like Lyle, I too am progressive, but I am a conservative. I am that way that I am because it seems the most reasonable.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/statecolleges/despite-scooter-cardinal-stritch-manager-at-home-in-field-house-of-dreams-es8r0la-191938771.html Oh wait! I guess you can succeed without government demanding you be given the position in some perverted idea of equality.
VOTING FRAUD IS 'DISENFRANCHISING'
Why? Because the tax rate kept going up. He moved to CT for a lower tax rate. Classic. NBC and Jerry, both left wing organizations move to Stamford, CT because their liberal buddies kept raising taxes. This is your modern liberal.
If you remember back to the good ole days of 70%+ tax brackets, there wasn't a whole lot of investment going on. The stock market remained below 1000, and was extremely vulnerable to crashes. Reagan proved that through lowing the tax brackets, you could receive more revenue. Companies and individuals weren't as apt to keep there money overseas, and employment rose. That is the formula you say didn't work, but history proves otherwise. Clinton had a modest rise in the upper tax bracket, but left corporate taxes alone. Yes he balanced the budget, but it wasn't because of a 4% tax hike on the rich. Further observation will show that he diverted funds from SSI to balance, but it was also an unprecedented growth dating back to the recovery of 1983 and continued unfettered through 2001 that kept the revenues flowing in. Bur regardless, I don't think anyone on my side doesn't bellieve in a safety net, but we don't want to subsidize a lifestyle choice.
There isn't enough money to pay for your socialism and "entitlements". http://www.usdebtclock.org/