|
The socialists are out
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
One of my biggest beefs with the Democratic party laid out crystal clear. They strike me as the party of anti-individualism and that is a major reason why I personally could not cast my vote for them. Some of you probably think that "common good" is a great concept, but I abhor the notion. I am not opposed to people helping people out of the goodness of their own hearts, but when you advocate this as policy and start talking about things like "fairness doctrines" you're walking down a slippery slope in the wrong direction. Not to mention a policy like this is a lovely veil for things like increased taxes and socialized healthcare. Hell, this message may very well become their achilles heel. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
| quote: | 'Common Good' Unifies Dems for Election
By RACHEL ZOLL
The Associated Press
Monday, October 16, 2006; 3:33 PM
-- Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America _ then repeated the phrase 29 times.
The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans.
"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."
Republicans have used the phrase, too. GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who faces Casey, a fellow Catholic, in November, wrote a book last year titled, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." But liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich.
"We really feel that it speaks to the central moral challenge of our time," said Alexia Kelly, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an advocacy group that formed two years ago.
"Our religious traditions call us to that deeper vision of caring for all, being in it together, not a go-it-alone culture," said Kelly, who has worked for the U.S. bishops and served briefly as a religious adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. "I think it's important that it crosses faith traditions."
Tom Perriello, a co-founder of the Catholic Alliance, said the approach would help end what he sees as a self-defeating practice among liberals _ treating religious Americans as a constituency that needs special handling, instead of crafting a message meaningful to all voters.
But he acknowledged that the strength of the "common good" as a unifying theme also is a weakness. The term is so broad it's hard to define and can be misinterpreted as a call for "big government," Perriello said. "The question right now is who is going to define it."
Advocates say they don't want to tie the phrase to a laundry list of narrow policies, but intend to convey a broad philosophy of governing with a positive appeal.
It won't be easy. Under Roman Catholic teaching, promoting the "common good" would include opposing abortion _ a position both Santorum and Casey embrace _ and opposing gay marriage to protect human dignity and the family. "Common good" Democrats are generally changing how they talk about abortion, calling it a tragedy to avoid _ rather than a private issue. But most have not come out against the procedure.
"I would argue that the conservative evangelical and traditional Catholic stands on same-sex marriage and abortion are stances in favor of the common good," said Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and a supporter of President Bush.
"We believe that traditional marriage is the basic building block of society."
The "common good" theme came up in meetings among Democrats and faith groups after the 2004 election, when the party felt blind-sided by the values vote and was frantic to solve its religion problem. Exit polls showed 78 percent of white evangelicals voted for President Bush. Bush, a Methodist, also won the Catholic vote 52 percent to 47 percent over Kerry, who is Catholic.
Around the same time, The American Prospect, a liberal policy magazine, ran articles by its editor Michael Tomasky, and by Halpin and analyst Ruy Texeira, urging the Democrats to develop a clear vision of the "common good" so Americans know what Democrats stand for.
Tomasky drew on political philosophers, and Presidents James Madison and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others. But the term also conveniently tapped into a guiding concept in Catholic and some Protestant traditions. It can be found in many papal encyclicals _ a pontiff's most authoritative declaration _ most recently in Deus Caritas Est, the first encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote "the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply."
The twin sources of the idea can be seen in who's adopting it.
From the political left, the Campaign for America's Future, which has worked with MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO, released an "Agenda for the Common Good" in June.
Mara Vanderslice, a religious outreach director for Kerry's presidential campaign, formed a political consulting firm last year called Common Good Strategies to "help Democrats reframe the national religious debate." The Casey campaign in Pennsylvania is a Vanderslice client. |
|
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Your own Republicans are the party of "anti-individualism".
Else why do they want everyone to get married in a certain way, lead the mainstream (as opposed to alternative) lifestyle, etc. They are the ones advocating "the common good". Don't believe me? Look at patriotism. Patriotism and "loving your country" and all that. American flags in every house. "We support our troops" in Suburbia and all that .
Hey, I wanna travel to Cuba to catch some tan, but your goddamn Republicans restrict my individual freedom to do so. Oh yea I forgot, I'd also like to be able to buy alcohol any day of the week. Can you convey this to your Republican friends please. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| Are government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic" though? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Your own Republicans are the party of "anti-individualism".
Else why do they want everyone to get married in a certain way, lead the mainstream (as opposed to alternative) lifestyle, etc. They are the ones advocating "the common good". Don't believe me? Look at patriotism. Patriotism and "loving your country" and all that. American flags in every house. "We support our troops" in Suburbia and all that .
Hey, I wanna travel to Cuba to catch some tan, but your goddamn Republicans restrict my individual freedom to do so. Oh yea I forgot, I'd also like to be able to buy alcohol any day of the week. Can you convey this to your Republican friends please. |
They can both be wrong. The difference is that Democrats have stood for the notion and have advocated it for years/decades. It is oft the cornerstone of their political philosophy. Hopefully the GOP morass is only temporary, but it's certainly not the platform that they run on. The article certainly points to a few GOPers that advocate a policy I clearly disagree with.
Get married a certain way? That's rich you ing rube. That might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Individual freedom and individualism are not necessarily the same thing. Hey, if you like communism so much then you should go to Cuba. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Are government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic" though? |
That will all depend, but the concept opens a lot of doors I'd rather not see the other side of. Like I said--a slippery slope. A very slippery slope. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That will all depend, but the concept opens a lot of doors I'd rather not see the other side of. Like I said--a slippery slope. A very slippery slope. |
"Slippery slope" concerns are generally not a good reason to oppose something though. What you're essentially saying is that you only oppose greater government welfare provisions because you're worried that they might lead to even greater government welfare provisions at some point in the future. I think that you personally have to take each proposal on its merits: you may oppose blanket economic equality (as do I) but that doesn't mean that you have to oppose even the slightest policy move in that direction. It's quite clear that this initiative won't lead to those sort of extremes, so I'll ask again: why are greater government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic"?
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Individual freedom and individualism are not necessarily the same thing. |
What is individualism without individual freedoms, though? :conf: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
"Slippery slope" concerns are generally not a good reason to oppose something though. What you're essentially saying is that you only oppose greater government welfare provisions because you're worried that they might lead to even greater government welfare provisions at some point in the future. I think that you personally have to take each proposal on its merits: you may oppose blanket economic equality (as do I) but that doesn't mean that you have to oppose even the slightest policy move in that direction. It's quite clear that this initiative won't lead to those sort of extremes, so I'll ask again: why are greater government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic"? |
Like I said earlier--if it's a matter of wanting to see everyone do better that's one thing, but when you make it the cornerstone of your campaign, that's another and I will never compromise my own beliefs to support such a notion. In case you didn't know, "common good" has often been used as the catch phrase for communism. Read between the lines. This is just setting up the stage for class warfare and a heavier burden on the evil rich. They will raise the tax rate on the most productive earners in our nation under the guise of "the common good". Yeah, we're all in this together as long as I win, regardless of how much you lose. I'm not saying I'm against a more balanced political system--god knows we obviously need more balance right now--but I will never be one to cast a vote in favor of someone who wants me to sacrifice my hard work in the name of the "common good". It is a sham. I'm sure all of those great politicians advoacting this policy will be lining up to make their own sacrifices for your betterment. They may even give themselves a pay-raise at your expense because they think their idea is so swell.
Would you enjoy going to a sporting event in the name of the common good? The most desireable outcome would be a 0-0 tie with all players getting equal playing time. Any athletes with exceptional skills would be handicapped so that they could not maximize their talents. That would just be peaches and cream! No winners and no losers! What a concept. that, I'd rather see a 50-0 bludgeoning because one team has worked harder and its players have worked to make themselves the best in the game. There would be losers, but it certainly isn't the fault of the stronger team for simply being better. Why should they sacrifice their hard work and talent to make a bench full of losers feel better about their lack of talent?
| quote: | | What is individualism without individual freedoms, though? :conf: |
They may go hand-in-hand, but that does not make them one and the same. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Dude, if gays want to marry, the Republicans won't let them. It's no use insulting me... That's reality. Their individual freedoms are being curtailed.. while the Democrats would extend this freedom to them.
YOUR party is the anti-freedom party. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Just read this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15265338/site/newsweek/
Today your Republican president criminalised gambling on the Internet. Never mind that the rest of the industrialized world allows it with few, if any, restrictions... he was caring about the public good. Right here, moron, let me direct your eyes:
| quote: |
When government restricts Americans' choices, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to profit from the paternalism.
|
|
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
arguments |
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think it's particularly relevent to what the Democrats are proposing here.
There are not many people in the western world who would support the concept of absolute material equality or the abolition of economic rights and it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply that that's what this proposal is actually gunning for. I fail to see how marginal tax increases or the provision of greater health-care coverage for those who can least afford it in anyway threatens the capacity of any man to profit from his labour and ingenuity. I will happily stand side-by-side with you in opposition to economic policies that gun for a "0-0" scoreline, but I would still argue that adequate welfare provisions are a integral instrument - in both an economic and moral sense - of government policy. This may make me a Keynsian rather than a neo-liberal, but it certainly does not make me a socialist.
| quote: | | They may go hand-in-hand, but that does not make them one and the same. |
The general is derived from the particular: "individualism", as a doctrine, is derived from "individual freedoms", as law. The former is dependent on the cumulative of the latter: individualism can't exist without the prior existence of individual freedoms. That's what I was trying to say. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Dude, if gays want to marry, the Republicans won't let them. It's no use insulting me... That's reality. Their individual freedoms are being curtailed.. while the Democrats would extend this freedom to them.
YOUR party is the anti-freedom party. |
So when their freedoms were equally curtailed under both democrat and republican presidents for the past 200 years, that was really just GOP oppression? I don't believe your man Clinton was an ardent supporter of gay marriage either. One issue does not make a broad encompassing point. Furthermore, the issue is more one of symantecs as I understand it. There is a thin line between "Marriage" and "Civil Union". One is a religious sacrement recognized by the state while the other is not based on any religious beliefs at all. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Clearly the GOP is anti-freedom when our GOP president has been fighting a war against authoritarian dictatorships in the name of liberty for the past 6 years. Yeah, that's the ticket. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think it's particularly relevent to what the Democrats are proposing here.
There are not many people in the western world who would support the concept of absolute material equality or the abolition of economic rights and it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply that that's what this proposal is actually gunning for. I fail to see how marginal tax increases or the provision of greater health-care coverage for those who can least afford it in anyway threatens the capacity of any man to profit from his labour and ingenuity. I will happily stand side-by-side with you in opposition to economic policies that gun for a "0-0" scoreline, but I would still argue that adequate welfare provisions are a integral instrument - in both an economic and moral sense - of government policy. This may make me a Keynsian rather than a neo-liberal, but it certainly does not make me a socialist. |
Fair enough. I just couldn't bring myself to vote in favor of it, though I recognize that there are many who would throw their full support behind it. |
|
|
|
|
