|
We are quick to use labels that mean different things to different people.. unless, of course, there are manifestos someplace from which people quote, behaving like Limpback dittoheads.
Here is where I am coming from, as a start:
I accept the role of a government to provide basic necessities to all citizens. This means food, shelter, medical attention, education and jobs and decent retirement.
Above that, I don't have any problems with some who are ambitious, or lucky, to have more, to be, yes, filthy rich. (A disclaimer - we are very much middle class who depend on a regular paycheck for a living).
There are some who favor communism and socialism but who have never lived in countries that practice this, to see what it really means. (Living in communes in this country does not count).
There are many who claim that ours is a police state - while never have lived in a real police state where someone can knock on one's door in the middle of the night, never to be heard off again.
There are some who claim that "adequate" income is $50,000 and every dollar above it should be taxed at 90% rate. I see this as unfair and punitive. Individuals should retain at least 51% of their earnings.
All these, by the way, come from threads on DU.
I support the "live and let live" approach. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is no body's business. Plus, living in an ideological society, means that one has to follow these dictum. I find such a living to be stifling and, yes, anti democratic. We should be able to choose the way we live, think, and interact with our families and friends and neighbors - as long as we do not harm anyone, of course.
I am all for a personal responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children. and if a daughter dresses like "a slut" - it is not the fault of the media promoting Brittany and Anna Nicole and the rest of them.
Parents, not teachers, are responsible for the way their kids behave and learn and their belief system. There are many private parochial schools that would love to instill a parent's "value system." Schools should concentrate on teaching and on counseling - as needed.
I do believe that the US sometimes has to be the policeman of the world. We've done this before and when it was successful - everyone cheered (most, at least). I do want us to intervene, military if we have to, to help the people of Darfur, for example, the way we did in Bosnia 10 years ago, the way we should have done in Rwanda 14 years ago.
I want our government to utilize our resources intelligently. Ours is a rich country. We can help the needy in our country and abroad. But we need to this smartly and compassionately. And I think that if our government will behave responsibly, so will individual citizens.
Even here, on DU, people still ask "what can my country do to me."
Some of us supported a draft - a humanitarian civic draft - and were shot down in that "the government will own our children." We consider this a trait of the Republicans - to keep government at a distance.. until there is a need. But this sentiment is alive and well on DU.
What does it matter? Again, there are threads of people who will not vote for a certain candidate because s/he is a "moderate" or a "centrist." There are DUers who don't want to compromise. They'd rather stay home or vote Green. And we we lose then we "deserve" it, or whatever. There are many who are still proud of their Nader's vote in 2000. (Will they wait 40 years, like those who stay home in 1968 and now regret it? was in the recent "the 60s" on PBS)
So here is the score: there are still more than 40 million people with no access to heath insurance; there are 86 million who do not get paid sick leave - according to ABC news a couple of days ago. Most Americans will have to work to the day they die, will not be able to retire. There are many sick and hungry children and adults in our society. Doctors leave the profession because they are tired of fighting the CEOs of the insurance companies while seeing their compensation dwindle.
Does anyone here think that we can correct any of this with Republicans in the White House and in Congress?
So Clinton may be pandering to the center (why is this so bad?) and Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and many of the new members of Congress do not stand by a woman's right to choose and most of them - certainly all the front runners of the race to the White House - do not support gay marriage.
But we accepted them because we got control of the House, at least.
And if DUers here are so bound by their ideology that they'd not vote for the party nominee in November, they they have no right to preach to us here. They'd rather talk than actually do something to better the life of all of us. They'd rather talk (i.e. click and nod) than be active in making our country better. Perhaps not ideal - it never will be - but certainly a lot better than what we have had during the 80s and in this Century.
OK, start flaming.
|