The Republican Reality Gap

[Prophet 451]

Ann Coulter once said that liberals "take a perverse joy in lying", that liberals actively enjoy telling untruths. She was, of course, wrong about liberals (as she would have difficulty even understanding a thought process so different to her own) but I am increasingly of the opinion that her remarks were correct if applied to conservatives (projection, in other words). How else can one explain the warped version of reality which so many conservatives carry around in their heads? I'm not talking about subjects which reasonable people can disagree on, like the existence and disposition of god(s) or the merits of direct democracy. Those are issues without clear answer which reasonable people can have a discussion about. I'm talking about believing and not just believing but vehemently defending beliefs which are provably, factually wrong. Believing something which is untrue would be understandable if it were done out of ignorance but such people, when exposed to the facts, will vehemently attack or dismiss them and often the messenger as well. In an individual, this would be considered mental illness (and in the case of some, such as Glenn Beck, that would be an accurate description) but the mental health community is understandably reluctant to label whole swathes of the public as crazy. If someone believes they are being followed by a man-eating hedgehog, you can just give them a heavy stick and a chair to stand on and let them get on with it but when a whole section of the public is holding beliefs which are no less crazy, those beliefs somehow become an accepted part of the public dialogue. For example:

- Fascism is a left-wing ideaology
I think it was Goldberg who started this one. Since the end of WWII, fascism has been identified as a right-wing (right-fringe, really) ideaology. There has never been any significant doubt about that. It's only fairly recently that some conservatives have decided that everything unpleasent is teh fault of the left and so, fascism must be a left-wing ideaology. Partly, this is based on the mistaken belief that state control of everything was the aim of communism, rather than the result of communism being unworkable in the real world. It's the same mentality which claims that because I dislike legal abortion, child molestation and homosexuality, all those things must be caused by the teaching of evolution, which I also dislike. One can find the same mindset in those who tout that the Weather Underground proves that the left is more likely to be violent while forgetting, for example, Timothy McVeigh. It's rewriting history, stealing history really, for use as partisan political points. And while we're on the subject:

- Obama is a socialist/communist
This one is based on a misreading of history so obvious that it must have been deliberate. To claim that Obama, a wimpish moderate in any sane world, is socialist in any way is not just wrong but outright insane and yet, it persists. And it persists because most people don't actually know what "socialism" means. They don't understand that when socialism says "communal ownership of the means of production and distribution", it means ALL the means, not just an interest or equity in a few firms which would otherwise have collapsed. But the right-wing media machine doesn't like that reality and so, they endlessly promote the lie that any communal ownership of anything is automatically socialist. Part of me wonders if this societal case of the fallacy of the excluded middle is the result of decades of Cold War rhetoric or simply the decades of propoganda on behalf of capitalism or if there is even a difference between the two.

- Republicans have been better for minorities
There are two strands to this one. The first is based on a very selective misreading of history. There certainly was a time when Republicans were the better party for minorities, that's inarguable. The Democrats, pressured by a group of conservative Southern members known as "Dixiecrats" were rotten for minorities for some time. But this reading of history ignores everything that's happened since integration, when the Dixiecrats almost universally defected to the Republican party. Since then, the Democrats have (overall and in general) been better at minority rights. And minorities know it. There was a time when black people almost universally voted Republican, seeing it as the party of Lincoln. These days, better than 90% of black people vote Democrat. Which brings us onto the second strand of this argument. This strand holds that minorities typically vote for Democrats because Democrats give them more "government hand-outs". Now, firstly, let's remember that it was Bill Clinton who ended welfare as an entitlement program (for which, I don't think he's been criticised enough) but secondly, notice the inherent bias and racism in the allegation. It assumes that A) government can never do anything good and B) that black people will vote for Democrats because they're all lazy work-shys who depend on "government hand-outs". Sometimes, for those less overt with their racism, some vague theory about a "culture of dependence" will be added.

Those are just three examples of what could be dozens. Indeed, so devoted are conservatives to their alternate universe view of reality that I could write a book on the subject (and may yet do so). To be a conservative, it seems, is to be a conspiracist; to believe that there exists some secret cabal of leftie elites constantly rewriting the world in their favour (at which, the leftie responds "have you seen us? We can't even keep a radio station running"). This is what psychologists call "projection", the seeing of one's own faults in others and it is agravated by the conservative trend toward "purity" i.e. calling oneself a Republican means accepting all these points wholesale or we'll call you a RINO and make you a non-person in the party. A whole faction of the populace believes that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are left-fringe radicals (and "left-wing radical" now means anything to the left of Bush who really was a radical) and if you call these people crazy, which would seem the obvious reasponse, they start screaming about Stalin labelling people insane and protesting their patriotism (every kook, crank and domestic terrorist in American history has proclaimed their patriotism). You cannot reason with these people because they have left reason entirely behind. Rather, their allegiance to this talking point version of reality is closer to that of a religion or cult, their accusations of liberals worshipping Obama as a messiah just more of their endless projection (and nowehere is this more true than of Glenn Beck's acolytes who swarm liberal publications whenever an article is unflattering of Dear Leader). The conservative model is well established by this point: Lie about something until you convince a small portion of the populace, force publications to label well-established facts as controversial and then shout "teach the controversy!" and rely on social pressure to do the rest.

So, how can they be beaten? I'm honestly unsure. Education would be an obvious point but children spend far more time learning the talking point reality at home than they do learning the reality-based version at school and the textbooks of those schools are now largely drawn to Texas standards and already corrupted anyway. Conservative control of the media is now so pervasive and so entrenched that we should expect no help from that quarter either. I wish I had an answer but every future I envision ends up with the USA accepting a version of reality entirely at odds with the one the rest of the world accepts.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Framing. Read Lakoff. We're divided by two worldviews, and until we understand that...

...we'll never solve this.

To date, I have found only one pair of models for conservative and liberal worldviews that meets all three adequacy," conditions, a pair that (1) explains why certain stands on issues go together (e.g., gun control goes with social programs goes with pro-choice goes with environmentalism); (2) explains why the puzzles for liberals are not puzzles for conservatives, and conversely; and (3) explains topic choice, word choice, and forms of reasoning in conservative and liberal discourse. Those worldviews center on two opposing models of the family.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

NGU.

[Prophet 451]

3. Thanks

I'll give that a read.

[OHdem10]

2. When Fascism comes to American, it will be called Anti-Fascism...Huey Long

[ConstitutionalLib]

4. First let me commend you on a reasonable, well presented discussion

Although I read this forum daily, and would love to engage some of those on here, I joined today specifically to respond to this discussion, because you seem like someone who can hold a discussion without rancor, and epithet hurling.

For my Virgin posting, I would like to differ with some of your points if I may. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. In every election I vote for the person I think will best do the job. I have held public office in my hometown, and have fought a long running battle, with my own money and for no reward, to enforce the town, and State's ethics laws, against corrupt officials.

To begin, I think the placement of Fascism as a "left wing" ideology comes from the extension of the lines of demarcation in current politics if you will. For example, Conservative platform planks are, as stated; smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, more freedom from government intervention. Liberal platform planks, as stated, are: social justice, economic justice, fairness and equality, government health care, economic rights, jobs creation.

If you look at that list dispassionately; The conservative(or right) approach relies on personal initiative, and less governmental help, they view government as the problem not the solution, while the liberal(or left) approach relies on government control and/or intervention/regulation.

If you extend those lines out to their extremes, on the right you would end up with total anarchy, no government, no intervention, no taxes, total freedom, but lacking the structure provided by a responsible government. On the left you would end up, at the extreme, with government control of everything, dictating every facet of your life in the belief that it is doing it for equality of outcomes, and in the best interests of society as a whole.

It is my belief that 99.9% of people fall somewhere short of the extreme projections in either direction. However Merriam- Webster defines Fascism as; a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It defines Communism as; : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

It defines Socialism as; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

If you accept those definitions, the common denominator is governmental intervention in the lives of the people, whether it be control, regulations, dictatorship, or totalitarianism. On the political line of demarcation described above, all of the government autocracies fall towards the left extreme, while the absence of them would be to the right.

As to the point about the right wing wailing of Obama as a "Socialist". He has fed those fears by using taxpayer money to assume governmental control of GM, Chrysler, the governmental influence over the banks and insurance companies through the stimulus bill. And the attempts at governmental control of health care management(or maybe just distribution) All of this expansion of government into traditionally private sector endeavors, lends itself to those fears materializing.

As to which party is better for minorities, that opinion lies solely with where your political perspective originates. If you lean left, then you see welfare, affirmative action, as good things; if you were conservative, you see that while necessary at their inception, the legacy of affirmative action is that it has undermined the perception of black achievement on it's merits.( the words of Clarence Thomas) You see the rise of black dependency on government handouts as the poison that has robbed the black man of his family, values, and worth.(the words of Bill Cosby)

I have to go to work, and will apologize now for not being able to reply to any comments until this afternoon. Thank you for reading, and I hope we can discuss this. Perhaps these ideas will not be seen as so radical as to get me banned.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I will keep this short.

You are making your premise based on, and I will use your definition of liberal, "social justice, economic justice, fairness and equality, government health care, economic rights, jobs creation." What words that I see there are Justice, Fairness, Equality, and Rights. Those four words alone are the basis for our nation and constitution. To equate Government heath care with totalitarian, dictatorial, and governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is a huge stretch in order to make a point. From your point of view enterprise is a "good" above all else. The words totalitarian, dictatorial, and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods more closely define the corporate state of this nation more than anything else and I agree it probably defines socialism but socialism of a different kind. That would be corporate socialism.

In addition we did try deregulation and less government for the past eight years (longer actually). Hasn't seemed to work out too well.

[ConstitutionalLib]

8. I made no premise, but used the words of campaigns

for these candidates, and YES, the WORDS are wonderful, but remember, I took no position, I was trying to shed light on both sides of the OP Thesis.

The problem is with the practice, Corporations whether they are "good" corporations or "evil" corporations do not have the legal power of coercion, The power to FORCE is a power reserved to government. A corporation can withhold product or money, it can bribe, cajole, intimidate, but so can government, and moreover only government can FORCE, in other words legally deprive you of life, or liberty.

Second, You cite the words; "Justice, Fairness, Equality, and Rights", without any acknowledgement of the other half of each of those terms as originally cited.

Economic Freedom- How can you be GIVEN economic freedom? That has to be achieved through work, earning, or maybe winning the powerball, lol

The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, but usually politicians corrupt that to champion equality of results, when trying to whip up votes.

Economic "rights"- Again how can you have a "right" to something that has to be provided by someone else?

Job creation- The government can institute policies that incentivise business to create jobs, but the government can not. Remember the government is the only employer that routinely advises "all NON-ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES" to remain at home during inclement weather. Business wouldn't HAVe any non-essential employees(or wouldn't admit it if they did). Also government routinely spends $400,000 to create a $50,000 job.

[ConstitutionalLib]

10. BTW, Great Name!

Wasn't that John Paul Jones' ship?

[Bonhomme Richard]

18. Yup.

[Winterblues]

6. First... welcome to DU

next your belief that Republicans do in reality believe what you said, small government less taxes fewer regulations etc... The reality is that when Republicans gain control Government grows taxes increase although they are not referred to as taxes but user fees or some such and by omission. By that I mean Federal Government cuts taxes and local municipalities have to raise taxes to make up for less Federal spending. Regulations, while it is true they reduce regulations on big business they increase regulations on people in general. They love to get into your bedroom for instance. They LIE about their intentions over and over and over again until people tend to believe or at least associate those attributes to Republicans. The Republican Party is ONE BIG LIE....They used to be, and probably still are, considered the fiscally sound Party but when the facts are examined the exact opposite is true..

[ConstitutionalLib]

9. Lets be honest... BOTH parties

increase taxes and the size of government over time. And the entrenched bureaucracy, meaning the 3 letter agencies that regulate beyond the bounds of the Constitution turn out new Federal Regulations annually by the thousands, no matter who is in power.

But yes, neither party holds true to it's campaign promises by and large. I was just using both sides stated platform planks for comparison purposes. I passed no judgement upon whether or not they live up to them.

And Thank you for the welcome It is appreciated.

[Prophet 451]

7. I don't have Meriam-Webster

I'm British. I have the Oxford English Dictionary instead.

Now to address your points:
"To begin, I think the placement of Fascism as a "left wing" ideology comes from the extension of the lines of demarcation in current politics if you will. For example, Conservative platform planks are, as stated; smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, more freedom from government intervention. Liberal platform planks, as stated, are: social justice, economic justice, fairness and equality, government health care, economic rights, jobs creation."

I'd quibble where you said "government healthcare". We want everyone covered by some form of healthcare and, as we see it, only the government is in a position to do that. So it's a case of government being the only tool handy rather than a love of government per se. On "economic justice", you'll need to define what you mean because I learned a long time ago that the meaning I learned in PoliSci (my minor) and the meaning given to the term by layman are often very different. The interpretation I learned was that of, firstly, elimination of prejudicial wage disparities (i.e. paying men more than women or blacks more than whites for the same work) and secondly, equality of opportunity.

"If you look at that list dispassionately; The conservative(or right) approach relies on personal initiative, and less governmental help, they view government as the problem not the solution, while the liberal(or left) approach relies on government control and/or intervention/regulation."

And here is where we hit our first set of disagreements. Firstly, I see an almost knee-jerk anti-government animus in the right which believes government can never do anything right even where government is the only body able to do something (for example, in financial regulation). Secondly, you make the mistake a lot of conservatives make of assuming that we lefties love government for it's own sake. We don't. No-one wants to expand government just for the hell of it. Rather, government is a tool, one of several and in some cases, it is the only tool powerful enough to do the job at hand.

"If you extend those lines out to their extremes, on the right you would end up with total anarchy, no government, no intervention, no taxes, total freedom, but lacking the structure provided by a responsible government. On the left you would end up, at the extreme, with government control of everything, dictating every facet of your life in the belief that it is doing it for equality of outcomes, and in the best interests of society as a whole."

Sorry, there is no kind way to put this: That's just flat wrong. There's several points I want to make here. Firstly, the most left-wing ideaology of all is Marxism. I think we'd agree on that. Well, contrary to popular belief (and even more popular lies), Marxism doesn't propose the state taking control of everything. In fact, Marxism envisions that the state eventually fades away entirely in favour of a collectivist anarchy. Secondly, while it's true that fascism and communism look very similar from the outside, they are very different in reasoning. Fascism presupposes the eminence of the state above all; a fusion of state and corporate interests (Mussolini once commented that "fascism should more properly be called corporatism"), extreme and constant nationalism, hearkens back to a supposed "golden age" and that inequality is acceptable as some types of person are simply superior to others (the German ideal of the ubermensch is one example). By contrast, Marxism proposes the abolition of the state entirely (different versions propose different methods of achieving that), the abolition of corporations in favour of a socialist economic model (communism being an extension of socialism), an abolition or withering away of national identities (i.e. the Communist Internationale), looks forward to a supposed "glorious future" and holds equality as sacrosanct. So the two are entirely different and, historically, have often been violently opposed to one another (the Nazis, socialist in name only, presented themselves as the anti-communist alternative for most of the thirties). None of this is in dispute, it's all easily confirmable by the writings of those involved in both movements. Compare the contents of Mein Kampf to the writings of Karl Marx and the difference in aims could not be more obvious. Thirdly, as should now be obvious, the left-right distinction is rather limited (dealing purely with economic matters) and anarchism doesn't really fit into it.

"It is my belief that 99.9% of people fall somewhere short of the extreme projections in either direction. However Merriam- Webster defines Fascism as; a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It defines Communism as; : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

It defines Socialism as; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

While I would agree that the vast majority fall somewhere between the two extremes, I have to disagree with the descriptions listed here. For example, economic regimentation is not a required feature of fascism and was largely absent from many examples of historical fascism. Secondly, the description of communism is awful. It fails to draw a line between the collectivist anarchy that Marx envisioned and the effective dictatorship that the Soviets ended up with. Soviet Communism was entirely different from, and in some cases directly opposite to, the version of communism which Marx envisioned. The definition of socialism is likewise lacking. It inserts "governmental" where no historical socialist would have done so and fails to mention that, by the writings of the people involved, it means ALL teh means of production and distribution, i.e. if there are still private companies doing the same thing, then the result cannot be called socialist.

"If you accept those definitions, the common denominator is governmental intervention in the lives of the people, whether it be control, regulations, dictatorship, or totalitarianism. On the political line of demarcation described above, all of the government autocracies fall towards the left extreme, while the absence of them would be to the right."

Since I don't accept those definitions or the twisting of the political spectrum to place them all of the left, there's not much to say here. The current obsession in the USA with dividing political systems by whether they are for or against government's existence is a very new and entirely absurd development. It's similar to the debate over torture: Twisting the words until they have no meaning. To place fascism and communism on the same wing, you firstly have to ignore absolutely everything about the two systems that wasn't economics (and fascism had little to say about economics in the first place, it was mostly everything else). Then you have to throw aside the time-honoured and historical meanings of "left" and "right". Then you have to squint a little to obscure the fact that businesses were held privately and private fortunes amassed under fascism. Then you have to completely ignore the massive difference between Communism by Marx and Communism by Stalin. And then, maybe, if you squint a little and in the right light, they might, just might, look vaguely similar.

"As to the point about the right wing wailing of Obama as a "Socialist". He has fed those fears by using taxpayer money to assume governmental control of GM, Chrysler, the governmental influence over the banks and insurance companies through the stimulus bill. And the attempts at governmental control of health care management(or maybe just distribution) All of this expansion of government into traditionally private sector endeavors, lends itself to those fears materializing."

OK, I'm going to knock this one on the head from the start. No-one in government was ever talking about "governmental control" of healthcare (except Bernie Sanders). The only thing that any of the bills proposed was that the government set up a public option which would be just another insurance company among dozens. That's not socialism (because it would be competing with private companies) and it's not "governmental control". Anyone who told you it was is lying to you. Much the same applies to "governmental control" of GM, Chrysler, etc. If they are competing with private companies (and they are), it's not socialism. This accusation comes about not because the Obama admin has been socialist in any way but because so few Americans know what the word "socialist" actually means.

"As to which party is better for minorities, that opinion lies solely with where your political perspective originates. If you lean left, then you see welfare, affirmative action, as good things; if you were conservative, you see that while necessary at their inception, the legacy of affirmative action is that it has undermined the perception of black achievement on it's merits.( the words of Clarence Thomas) You see the rise of black dependency on government handouts as the poison that has robbed the black man of his family, values, and worth.(the words of Bill Cosby)"

Affirmative action, I'm going to leave aside. I have no strong opinion either way on that. However, it can't have escaped you that the black person you used to decry welfare is extremely rich (and fairly conservative). Without welfare, people starve. We know this because it's happened. Since high and mighty and entirely un-evidenced view about "dependency" (which presumes this is peculiar to black people and therefore presumes black people are lazier than whites) doesn't negate the fact that, without welfare, people will die. The idea that some classes are "dependent" on "government handouts" assumes a general laziness in that class and, further, assumes that alternatives are available. Also, I think many, many people assume that welfare is far more generous than it actually is. The vast majority of people would not choose to live on the pittance that is welfare in both our nations if they had any other choice.

"I have to go to work, and will apologize now for not being able to reply to any comments until this afternoon. Thank you for reading, and I hope we can discuss this. Perhaps these ideas will not be seen as so radical as to get me banned."

Well, I'm entirely willing to discuss these things with you. I have no idea how the mods on DU decide on bans and suchlike though, so if I don't see you again, thanks for reading.

[Richard Steele]

11. K&R for this post alone. nm

[KatyMan]

12. Agreed

Thanks Prophet, very well said throughout!

[Prophet 451]

13. Thank you n/t

[Richard Steele]

14. Perhaps misspoke....

Meant to compliment the REPLY
without detriment to the OP;
expected that EVERYONE understood
the OP deserved K&R.

[ConstitutionalLib]

15. And, as anyone who has used it knows...

Oxford is the definitive dictionary. On a side note, where in the U.K. I lived for 4 years in Banbury, Oxon. My eldest son was born there. But to address your points; and I DO apologize for taking so long to get back here)

I must point out that you are arguing from the left leaning perspective, and I chose no sides in this, I merely use the platform planks stated by each party. I pointed out that governmental regulation/intervention/control, call it what you will, is a desire/device of the left, as stated; while less government influence is supposedly the goal of the right. And, yes, I will concede that the right does not achieve that goal, but again, that is not what I was talking about. I was trying to explain how differing ideology has it's grounding in their perspective of issues and events.

In terms of the governments function; Constitutionally the Federal government has certain function reserved to it alone, these are very few, and usually things it would be impractical for each state to perform on their own(ie: National defense, maintaining of interstate roads, negotiating treaties and international agreements, etc.) Most all governmental function that we take for granted on a federal level, more properly should be the province of the several states according to the Constitution. This makes sense as the Founders evidenced great trepidation about the potential growth and encroachment of individual liberty of the federal beast they were creating. I would prefer functions like education to be less federal and more local, as I believe, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that the closer government is to the people the more responsive it is to their needs. If your selectmen do something bone-headed, it is easy to walk into a selectmen's meeting and tell them about it. It is much more difficult to do so, when the action occurs 500 miles away in Washington. But, then again, I am something of a purist in this.

Communism in it's pure form is unworkable because there would be no one of any greater influence than anyone else. Even in a commune you have someone, or a council that acts as guidance for the communes efforts.

Fascism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin, as it were, Socialism on an economic level controls the means of production, as does Fascism(hey, we are going to ALLOW you to own your business, we are merely going to tell you who you can sell to, how much you can sell it for, and how much you will make for your efforts) Fascism adds a virulent jingoism to the mix, more of a dictatorship than a politburo.

Ok, regarding health care, I believe you are both right and wrong, let me explain...

Correct almost no one spoke of "government OWNERSHIP" of hospitals as a National policy" although part of the 1,300 page health care bill did propose the building of government owned hospitals in some cities across America. What they spoke of was "single payer" meaning all health care payments being paid by or through various government agencies. Part of the problem here is that the cost of services is removed from those who contract for those services. This is always a recipe for increasing costs and little accountability. Let me give you a personal example; I do not have health insurance. Have not had it for 10 years. This is by choice. I am self employed and the cost of insurance for me is prohibitive. However, My doctors office visit costs me $35.00, doctors bill insurance companies and medicare $110.00 for the same visit. Whenever I go for any treatment of any kind I negotiate with the doctor and my costs are reduced because I am paying for it, and they don't have to spend hours on paperwork, chasing payments from insurance and the government, and partial payments from both. I just had a chest x-ray two weeks ago, I went to the place I had one done 10 years ago when I had insurance. They said a chest x-ray would be $400.00 that is what they bill medicare and insurance companies. They do this because medicare, which by it's sheer size effectively sets the reimbursement rates for insurance companies as well, most use the same percentages as medicare, usually only pays 15-40% of the cost of any procedure. I told them I would be paying cash, what could I get it for, after some haggling I ended up paying $70.00.

The point of this is that the single payer while it seems great on the face of it, masks the true costs, because they are no longer your responsibility but the governments. It masks the fact that the government has no money until they take it from us. It masks the fact that as more people use the system, and more bureaucracy forms around it, the costs escalate and the quality drops, until the government in an effort to reduce costs begins making decisions about what is necessary and what is elective, and how long you can wait to have something done, much as is happening right now in Canada, and on the NHS in Britain. I have some personal experience with the NHS, and please correct my perceptions of circumstances ave changed in the last 20 years, but here is my story...

In 1986, I had a car accident on the A421 coming into the edge of Milton Keynes. My Daimler Sovereign that I had just bought from a director of the company I was working for collided with a Ford Sierra. We were both going 60 or so. it wasn't pretty. within minutes of the accident a tour bus of American nurses(as fantastic as this sounds it is the God's honest truth)The long and short of it was they took us to Milton Keynes General, which at the time was the newest, most modern hospital in the country. My left eyelids were torn about and inch and a half back from the corner of my eye, my left ear was torn half off, and my face and beard were caked with dried road dirt, and glass, I had chunks of glass embedded in my face. The doctor(his name tag said "student doctor", which I took to mean intern, but in reality meant someone going to school and working to gain practical experience) poured water across the eye to irrigate it and proceeded to button stitch the eyelids with 3.0 suture material(usually reserved for scalp wounds, too thick for face wounds)(I was a just retired USAF Medic at the time) Never cleaned out the eye nor the ear, but sutured the ear with the same material, closing into the wounds the road dirt, and glass. Put a cast on my left leg, and sent me up to the ward. Next day I was talking to my ward mates, a lovely young lady named Moira to my left, 51 y/o who was finally having her hip replacement after waiting 19 months (her 76 y/o mothers had been denied a hip replacement, the NHS telling her that she did not have the requisite life expectancy to justify the cost of surgery, Mom, had it done under BUPA, private health insurance in the U.K.) 3rd, day I asked the matron if I could get someone to pick the glass out of my face, or clean off the road dirt, she came back with a basin of soapy water and a mirror, and told me to call her when I was done. I checked myself out of the hospital that day, had my wife drive me to the Base hospital at RAF Upper Heyford, and the USAF med. techs spend 4 hours in the ER pulling glass out of my face, re opening the sutures and cleaning and resuturing with the proper material.

The point of this story, and I admit it is anecdotal, it is merely my personal experience, and may or may not be indicitive of how the system operates, is that government generally increases costs and decreases quality in whatever they do rather than the inverse.

I sincerely hope my tale did not offend you, and I did not mean it as an indictment of the NHS, merely one man's experience getting care through that system, in comparison to the US Military system.

[Prophet 451]

17. I am sorry for your experiances

"On a side note, where in the U.K. I lived for 4 years in Banbury, Oxon. My eldest son was born there. But to address your points; and I DO apologize for taking so long to get back here"

I'm in Stoke-On-Trent, in the Midlands. Just down the road in Burton, they brew half the nation's beer. We have a beer festival every year. Don't worry about time, we all have real lives.

"I must point out that you are arguing from the left leaning perspective, and I chose no sides in this, I merely use the platform planks stated by each party. I pointed out that governmental regulation/intervention/control, call it what you will, is a desire/device of the left, as stated; while less government influence is supposedly the goal of the right. And, yes, I will concede that the right does not achieve that goal, but again, that is not what I was talking about. I was trying to explain how differing ideology has it's grounding in their perspective of issues and events."

Again, I have to point out that this classification is distinctly new and doesn't match up with traditional definitions of left-right. Traditionally, the further you went to the left, the more you believed that humans were inherently good and could be trusted to manage themselves (see, for example, the career of Tony Benn) and the further you went to the right, the more you believed humans were inherently selfish and must be controlled. Naturally, that's extremely simplified for the sake of discussion but those are basically the definitions that I learned in PoliSci a decade ago. Are those left-leaning definitions? Possibly but I don't think so. With that in mind, the end-goal of the right in your definition (anarchism) is a great deal closer to Marxism (the most left-wing paradigm) than to anything else.

"In terms of the governments function; Constitutionally the Federal government has certain function reserved to it alone, these are very few, and usually things it would be impractical for each state to perform on their own(ie: National defense, maintaining of interstate roads, negotiating treaties and international agreements, etc.) Most all governmental function that we take for granted on a federal level, more properly should be the province of the several states according to the Constitution. This makes sense as the Founders evidenced great trepidation about the potential growth and encroachment of individual liberty of the federal beast they were creating. I would prefer functions like education to be less federal and more local, as I believe, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that the closer government is to the people the more responsive it is to their needs. If your selectmen do something bone-headed, it is easy to walk into a selectmen's meeting and tell them about it. It is much more difficult to do so, when the action occurs 500 miles away in Washington. But, then again, I am something of a purist in this."

As a Libertarian, that's largely the position I expect and, while I disagree, it's a position I can respect. Personally, I have never understood why Americans are so frightened of a government they can vote out every few years.

"Communism in it's pure form is unworkable because there would be no one of any greater influence than anyone else. Even in a commune you have someone, or a council that acts as guidance for the communes efforts."

Absolutely agreed. It's one of those ideas that sounds nice on paper but really doesn't (and can't) work in reality.

"Fascism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin, as it were, Socialism on an economic level controls the means of production, as does Fascism(hey, we are going to ALLOW you to own your business, we are merely going to tell you who you can sell to, how much you can sell it for, and how much you will make for your efforts) Fascism adds a virulent jingoism to the mix, more of a dictatorship than a politburo."

Not exactly. While what you say is true, socialism confines itself purely to economics whereas fascism forces itself into all other areas as well. Thus, it would be more accurate to say that fascism and communism (which is, after all, an extension of socialism) are two sides to the same coin, which they are. However, in discussing political ideaologies, the fact that they are two different sides matters. While they look a lot alike and both are authoritarian/totalitarian, their reasons for being so are very different.

Right, health care... Single payer wasn't really mentioned either. I believe Bernie Sanders included it in an ammendment but it was never included in the bills submitted and Sanders eventually withdrew his amendment.

With regard to what you went through in 1987, and my sympathies for that ordeal, I should explain what was going on behind the scenes politically there. During the Eighties, the Conservative government of Thatcher was systematically defunding the NHS, covertly closing hospitals and downsizing the workforce by the simple expediant of not replacing people when they left/retired/died/whatever. What that led to was, predictably, a complete shambles of a health service. All of this was in an attempt to convince the British public to accept the abolition of the NHS and a movement to private medicine. That plan backfired and one of the main complaints about Thatcher which forced her out in 1991 was that the NHS had come to resemble something from the third world. Her successor, John Major, lost by a landslide to Tony Blair in 1997, partly because of Blair's promise to improve the NHS. Now, because Blair was stupid enough to pledge himself to Conservative budgets for his first term and never had the nerve to raise taxes to where they needed to be (and don't blame me, I didn't work for the smarmy git), we haven't entirely recovered yet but it has massively improved.

In my lifetime and barring the usual bumps, bruises and broken bones, I have needed serious medical attention twice. Once when an alsation tried to eat my face. On that occasion, I was triaged within fifteen minutes and having my face stitched up within forty. The other was when I was a teenager on a Boys Brigade camp (similar to Eagle Scouts) and, through goofing around, ended up with a tentpeg through my leg. That took slightly longer since the internal muscle had to be cleaned and stiched together but again, I was waiting a fairly brief time. Today, I see my doctor every two weeks and a psychiatrist every month due to mental illness (Major Depressive Disorder), both of whom have been extremely responsive.

Don't misunderstand, the NHS isn't perfect. There are still problems, Thatcher's cuts caused a kind-of "lost generation" of medics that we've had to deal with by bringing people in from the Commonwealth nations (mainly India and Pakistan) but it is on it's way to recovery. Oh, and "student doctor" now does mean "intern" again.

Moreover, I have never understood why it is believed that a private system which must produce a profit, would inherently be cheaper than a public system which doesn't. On every occasion when we have privatised previously public services (and Thatcher was a demon for it, we privatised water, gas, electricity, telecoms and steel), prices have exploded and service had deteriorated.

[oldlib]

16. Your analysis is well stated.

Todays republican Party is nothing like the Party in the fifties. At that time the majority of todays Republicans were Southern Democrats and they became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act.