To quote Bertrand Russell once again, "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." It is this trait, which conservatives deride as weakness, that in reality is the liberals' greatest strength.
Conservatives are reliant on what amounts to a dogmatic faith that they are correct in their beliefs, and have a difficult time admitting they are wrong. They fear it will destroy the image they have presented to the world, not to mention their own self image. They seem to be the living embodiment of the John Wayne character in the 1948 film "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," who constantly said, "Never apologize: it's a sign of weakness."
Liberals are less afraid to live with their doubts. It makes it easier to live with, and perhaps correct, their own failings, and to forgive the failings of others. To the liberal, the concept of sin corresponds to its original meaning of missing the mark. The liberal is also far less likely than conservatives to confuse the epistemological concepts of belief and knowledge as often as his conservative brethren.
A broadly enfranchised government, based upon the principles of a republic--that it is a government of laws, not men--is the type most likely to enable the acquisition of vast wealth by its citizens. Ironically, a republic's wealthiest citizens are inimical to the concept of a republic with an electorate that is broadly based among its citizens, both economically and politically. A quote attributed to James Madison, tells us the outcome of this situation, "We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic can not stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."
The median income, adjusted for inflation, has not significantly increased--while productivity has shot through the roof--in the United States since 1973. It has in fact declined--when adjusted for inflation--in the period 2000-2007. I believe that this decline is even more shocking if you discount the wages of government employees at all levels, who usually receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA) to their pay on a regular basis, something few people in the private sector without union jobs can count on.
The conservatives complain about extending unemployment insurance benefits when there are no jobs that available that will support a man and his family, because they might have to give up the tax cuts for the rich that have doubled our deficit in ten years without any appreciable improvement in the American economy outside of the stock market, the cost of two wars--one of which, Iraq, was totally unnecessary--and the decay of our infrastructure to the point of it costing lives. As William Cobbett wrote in his answer "To Parson Malthus," in 1819, "To suppose such a thing possible as a society, in which men, who are able and willing to work, cannot support their families, and ought, with a great part of the women, to be compelled to lead a life of celibacy, for fear of having children to be starved; to suppose such a thing possible is monstrous."
The conservatives oppose universal health care, when a government run health care system, even if it had administrative costs that were twice the stated cost of Medicare (which are 3.2 percent), would still reduce those costs by more than 18 percent of our current medical expenses (that is approximately $350,000,000,000), without affecting the income (except possibly for illegal kickbacks) of a single doctor, nurse, or hospital.
The money problems that the other Western Democracies are facing, in particular with regard to their social safety net, are directly attributable to tax reductions by conservative governments on their wealthiest citizens. Having at long last succumbed to the Kool-Aid of Milton Friedman and supply side economics, these conservative governments are trying take their countries into the same disastrous direction that President Reagan started America on thirty years ago. This is in direct contradiction of the fact that the most vibrant economies in the world, e.g., Brazil, also have some of the highest marginal tax rates. Conservative politicians around the world always try to cut programs for the poor, working, and middle classes, while making certain that their wealthiest constituents--George W. Bush's "haves and have mores"--get richer feeding at the public trough.
As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in Democracy in America, "What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class." The only way to accomplish this is to tax inheritances heavily, or as Ted Turner said, leave only enough for his heirs to do anything, but not enough to do nothing. And George W. Bush is a perfect example of the dangers of inherited wealth. Or as Ann Richards said, "A man who was born on third base, and thought he hit a triple."
Conservatives hearken back to, and look for the means by which they might maintain the past beyond its natural conclusion, because they fear the new and unknown. In truth, by the time change has become acceptable for most conservatives, it has been a fact for a generation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
