Some Basic Principles
This is Delaware Liberal after all. Conservatives are welcome to debate us, but there are some basic principles we believe in. After Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas last month, liberals and progressives across the country have been writing a “Netroots Platform,” which has recently been released. Over the next few days, I will posting different sections for discussion. I do this because our conservative friends do need to understand us better. Indeed, in response to the statement that “Liberals fear freedom, individual liberty, and their fellow Americans,” Steve Newton said the following:
Liberals define freedom differently that you do; neither side has a monopoly on the word.
Liberals view individual liberty as freedom from want, hunger, and lack of medical care, with the best possible remedies coming from an enlightened public policy that manages the necessary redistribution of some of society’s excess wealth to insure that all people start with a foundational basis of security and prosperity.
For a libertarian, Steve does a good job at defining what liberals are all about. That is not all we are about, though. So without further delay, what follows is a statement of general principles from the Netroots Platform. I will post the sections about foreign policy, national security, and the economy in the coming days.
The American Dream begins with every American’s right to be healthy, educated, and to live in a safe community and a clean environment. We believe vibrant economy is built with American jobs, well-paid productive workers, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit. We believe responsibility, honesty, and compassion are fundamental to a successful nation and that efficient government, effective public investments, and fiscal responsibility serve our citizens best.
We believe protecting personal liberty begins with the right of every citizen to enjoy their full civil liberties with equal access to opportunity and justice, We believe in the values of freedom, fairness, and respect. We believe the cornerstone of democracy is honest elections, transparent government and a deep commitment to our nations’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We believe leadership with global cooperation is the best way to secure peace and acting on environmental challenges strengthens our nation and protects the Earth. We believe the power of the United States must be used honestly and wisely.
We believe America’s promise of prosperity, liberty and security belongs to all Americans and that our nation’s strength lies in a shared commitment to these ideals.
“an enlightened public policy that manages the necessary redistribution of some of society’s excess wealth to insure that all people start with a foundational basis of security and prosperity”
How presumptive!!!
And misguided….
Uh, that is Steve’s characterization, which I said was not entirely on point.
DD, just a point: my definition was not intended to be complete; it was off the top of my head in 30 seconds and meant to be instructive for mike w. It obviously wasn’t a “think piece,” it was just an attempt to get him to be more nuanced.
If you’d like to see me actually trying to do a thorough job on something like this, see the post below where I attempted to understand Dana Garrett’s self-definition as a social democrat.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-like-dana-but-heres-why-i-wont-be.html
Give it a read and then I’d be interested in knowing how good a job you think I did.
🙂 An idea? It would be an interesting exercise, possibly to have your liberal readers take a serious shot at defining conservative and libertarian, while mine did conservative and liberal, and FSP’s did liberal and libertarian.
(And I do mean serious attempts to try to characterize how a liberal would define liberal, etc.)
I think it might lead to some interesting discussion if it could be coordinated.
I think it would be an interesting discussion if it could be honest. Like I don’t want to see comments of FSP like “Liberals want to kill babies and are terrorists, etc” just as we will not allow us to denigrate into calling conservatives Nazis.
And I do know you were just giving an off the top of your head description, but it was pretty good. I wouldn’t couch it in the terms of “necessary redistribution” and “excess wealth,” but you are very close to a general principle description that I gave you from the platform.
Let’s coordinate it. During next week sometime.
DD I’d actually say wait until after the Labor Day weekend–more time to coordinate and I suspect blog traffic is going to get somewhat thinner as the holiday and beginning of school approach.
I agree completely that I don’t want people defining Libertarians either as “assholes who believe the government should let babies starve to death.” I’m talking about a serious effort to see what we each know about the other’s beliefs.
I’d do it in topics (because it’s really hard to write a whole general philosophy section even for your own ideology) like foreign policy, role of government, etc.
One serious question apropos this thread (I really am not sure about this one): do you consider liberal and progressive as currently used by the people who self-identify as such, to be synonyms? If so, would people be upset if I used the terms interchangeably?
If not, what substantively is the difference between a liberal and a progressive?
If it is about anything, America is about promise and optimism.
I think that LIBERAL is the patriotic and American position today.
Conservatives have demonstrated that they don’t give a flying fuck about America.
Of course, the words “I think” and “jason” used in the same sentence have about as much validity as the words “constitutional” and “Bush administration” strung together.
They are not really synonyms. We believe a lot of the same things, but go about getting things done differently. I point you to David’s article in the HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-bet_b_9140.html
On an aesthetic note, I think the term “progressive” contrasts better with “conservative” for the terms are exactly opposite in my view. Conservatives want to preserve what is past, and Progressives want to change for the future.
OK I read the article and here’s my conundrum:
The HuffPo article clearly would label Obama as a liberal and not a progressive. In the primaries, however, Hillary identified herself on multiple occasions as a progressive.
But I don’t see, on policy terms, that much difference between them (say, on health care) to justify that difference.
It seems to me that Hillary was not using progressive in the HuffPo sense, but as a way to avoid saying she was a liberal.
Correct or not?
Yes and No. The article pointed out one instance where Obama was not acting as a progressive. Overall, in the primary, Obama was the true progressive, and Hillary was calling herself one, whereas she was the true liberal, according to the Sirota article.
To you, there would not be much difference between them, for to you, they are both for universal healthcare, but in a liberal v. progressive model, there is a difference in how they achieve it.
How you achieve goals is how you distinguish between liberals and progressives.
This really started out as a great post…but Jason why did you have to go and be all Ed McMahon stooge about what was looking to be some serious deliberation?
“Our nation’s strength lies in the SHARED COMMITMENT”……” BINGO!!!! I’ll help anyone who’s trying….or is elderly, sick, reduced mental capacity, or a reversal of life’s circumstances….but I refuse to support programs that are enabling to dependency, and/or create a higher standard of living, remaining in programs rather than progressing to an exit strategy. America already has “safety nets”–I DO NOT support safety nets for the safety nets. The commitment as you stated needs to go both ways.
And on a lighter note–I’m in Scottsdale for a few days–does anyone need a McCain souvenir? If not — I’ll just leave w/ memories and a cheap Diamondbacks T-shirt.
D-backs suck. GO ‘ol man MOYER!!
😀
As I look at Mr Newton’s beginning and what you quoted from the
NutrootsNetroots Platform, one question quickly comes to te fore: do you believe that people should be taxed solely for the provision of general services, or may people be taxed as well to redistribute wealth from those who produce more to those who produce less?It seems to me that this is a question liberals tend to avoid, even as they propose specific policies which would affirm a belief in the latter, because people don’t really want to admit a belief in the latter. It is, however, the core difference between liberalism and libertarianism.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Americans do better when taxes are progressive, with those who get the most paying the most. They typically use more infrastructure and benefit more from being American so it is only fair that they pay their share.
Those who need a hand-up should be given a chance to realize the American dream. Security, education, a safety-net in time of illness or economic hardship, these should be available to all Americans, not just those who can afford it.
There Dana, I’m a Liberal and I just said it. In a progressive society taxes do redistribute wealth to some degree. I’m not advocating socialism, just enlightened self-interest. By helping all Americans do better the market expands and the rich can get richer. I read an article this week where they were talking about BushCo policies having killed the market — nobody can afford to buy anything. Suddenly all those corporations are looking for customers. It is the inevitable result of class warfare.
Dana…
No, I do not believe in taxing just to redistribute wealth. I believe in taxing to provide for our social programs and our security. I do believe in a progressive tax scale, where those who make more pay more, and those who make less pay less.
Basic patriotic American stuff there DD. …establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
You have to wonder why some on the right are so determined to turn us into a broke, second rate banana republic.
The Delawaredem wrote:
But DD, our social programs do redistribute wealth; your first and second sentences are inherently contradictory. Rebecca at least recognized it and admitted it.
The problem with the “the people who have more should pay more” argument is that there is no ceiling to how much more they should pay. This includes people who started with little and through their own intelligence and drive became very successful. It’s difficult to look at the amount you pay in taxes and be reminded that you probably haven’t “paid your fair share” if you enjoy a good life.
Rebecca wrote:
Really? OK, let’s look at the public schools. The wealthier you are, the more probable it is that you will send your children to a private school. Wealthier people, taken as a whole, get less benefit from public education than do poorer people. Why, then, should public education be funded by taxes which fall disproportionately on the wealthy?
What about public transportation? Wealthier people are far less likely to use it than are poorer people, yet because every public transportation system in America is subsidized by tax revenue, the wealthy are being asked to contribute a disproportionate share to subsidize the people who do use public transportation.
You might have a point when it comes to highways, but much of our road funds comes from taxes on fuel, which means that the people who use the roads more wind up paying more in taxes for roads.
To get to a more general, abstract point, since I think that the philosophical is what you wish to debate, let’s suppose that the Donviti family, which works hard every day, makes $40,000 a year, and the Pico family, which works hard every day, makes $120,000 a year. Let’s further assume that a reasonable income for a family of four is $60,000 a year.
Now, should the Pico family be taxed nothing to help support the Donviti family, taxed $10,000 a year to help the Donviti family, but still not make them comfortable, taxed $20,000 a year, to make them comfortable, or $40,000 a year, so that both families have the same amount of money on which to live?
But, Dana, I see education as a bigger issue. I see it as an educated populace benefits society. In the end, we all win.
As far as public transportation… how would “the help” get to their jobs! 😉
I’d love to hear Joanne’s opinion on safety nets for corporations….
You take your risks and you should take the consequences. I agree that it should be equally applied to those who abuse social services.
The difficulty in determining who is scamming the system and improperly benefitting from it is the crux.
Dana… I said I do not want to tax just to redistribute wealth, as if redistributing wealth was my goal. No, I am taxing to provide for social services and our national security, because I believe society has a duty to provide for that. My favor a taxing structure that takes more from those who make more, since it is only fair.
I always find the arguments on why we shouldn’t bail out corporations to be interesting. It’s like no one actually works for these big corporations or that the failure of those big corporations wouldn’t have a severe impact on less well-off folks. It may sound harsh, but if one person loses their job, it affects them (and to some lesser degree, the merchants and businesses they support). But if a big corporation fails, it can harm entire communities, which has something to do with why we bail them out. Of course, I’m sure you can pour a certain amount of cynicism into this public spiritedness.
And why is it fair to take more from people who earn more? I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise, but it seems to be one of those fundamentals that we can’t question. Is it because someone who earns more can afford to have more taken from him to pay for something else? And why is it that everybody gets an equal say (or should get an equal say) in how the money is distributed, even if they didn’t put any money in?
“I always find the arguments on why we shouldn’t bail out corporations to be interesting. It’s like no one actually works for these big corporations or that the failure of those big corporations wouldn’t have a severe impact on less well-off folks.”
So… we should view corporations as a society? Meaning that bailing out corporations helps everyone?
If corporations fail, does it help or hurt its employees?
BTW, to answer your question, I’m not sure bailing out corporations helps everyone, but I’ve seen what happens when large companies fail. It’s not just the workers who are affected, but every business that those workers do business with, from grocery stores to doughnut shops. So, maybe bailing out the corporations does help everyone.
LOL Stream of consciousness comment there. 😉
It’s a tough question. If it’s okay to bail out corporations – even though they may or may not have acted irresponsibly – for the betterment of others… why is it wrong to bail out individuals who may or may not act irresponsibly?
Is there really a difference?
I think it depends on the situation and the corporation. For example, after 9/11, of course we should have helped the airlines. But we should not be bailing out the Big Three auto manufacturers in Detroit. They have been bailed out before, and yet they still refused to develop hybrids for years until it is too late. Toyota and Nissan and Honda had hybrids in production in the early nineties because they saw the writing on the wall. Detroit stuck to its normal way of doing business, and its same product, and it continued to lose billions year after year.
So if you’re big enough… is there any risk associated with Capitalism?
Sharon, as to your question, a progressive tax structure (those who make more pay more) does have as its rationale who has the ability to pay.
As for equal say in how the money is distributed, I am assuming you are talking about the principle of one person = one vote, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. Well, that is true, if you are talking the equal weight of votes, then the rich and the poor do have an equal say in how it is distributed.
However, I argue that the rich do indeed have more say in how it is distributed, because they do have more money, and thus can donate to campaigns and otherwise influence government in ways that the poor cannot. So in the end, the rich do have more say in how money is spent, proportionate to the money they pay into the system in taxes.
Yes, because the government can refuse to bail you out. Look at all those dot coms bringing in millions in the late 90’s. No one bailed them out. Huge airlines have gone under, like TWA and Eastern. There is risk.
It’s an interesting argument, to bail or not to bail. We’ve seen it work both ways. We’ve bailed out the automakers (or some of them, not all of them). We bailed out the S&Ls. We bailed out the airlines, although, again, not all of them.
I’d say since Enron, there’s come to be a philosophy that we can’t let big companies fail because of the ripple effect. I don’t know that I really buy that, although watching communities crippled when their major industry goes bust is hard to take. To me, that sort of shows whether you think capitalism works or not. Do you think we have an obligation to keep companies afloat because they employ so many? Or do we accept the pain communities feel when their economies go belly up?
Here in Fort Worth, Dick Cheney took out his wrath on Tarrant County in 1990 after Jim Wright was booted as Speaker of the House. Something like 91% of the defense spending cuts (don’t have the exact figures) came out of Tarrant County that year, including closing down our air force base (later reopened as a joint reserve base, but the damage was done). It was devastating. Fortunately, this is a large enough metropolis that we survived.
The practical part of me says let the strong survive. The emotional part says I wouldn’t want any other community to have to deal with that.
Ah… practical and emotional. There’s an argument to be made for both sides. Now let’s apply that to the poor.
IMO, our society will do better if we help move people into the middle-class. Will we succeed with everyone? Of course not, but we must try.
It’s all about balance, and survival. It is not in anyone’s best interest for the number of poor to grow. For history shows that great disparities in wealth can lead to revolution. Got nothing? Got nothing to lose.
“Got nothing? Got nothing to lose”
Except freedom and individual liberty.
Pandora – Welfare and other social programs have been dismal failures at “moving people into the middle class.” It’s created an entire class of people who are dependent on the government.
There is an interesting parallel that just popped into my head regarding the bailout of corporations.
The government is able to step in and rescue children whose parents are abusive. Would a corporate bailout structure work where, if a corporation opts to use it, they have to replace the defective governing body (the parents)?
Like I said, this isn’t something that I put a lot of thought into, it just popped into my head.
We have bailed out big corporations, because there was political pressure to do so, because, as Sharon noted, too many people would lose their jobs. Yet if the company that is failing is too small, if not enough people would lose their jobs, then we don’t bail them out. Pandora had it exactly right: if you get big enough, the risk of failure is removed.
But is it wise? We bailed out Chrysler in the 1970s, and what have we gotten: a company that sold out to Daimler, a deal which lasted through 2007. Now Daimler has sold off Chrysler again, and after some profitable years, we’ll see Chrysler, the smallest, weakest and dumbest of the Big Three, in dire straits again. And the government will probably bail Chrysler out again!
Sharon wrote:
Yes, but that can’t be blamed on then Secretary of Defense Cheney: that was the heyday of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRACC), a supposedly non-partisan effort to reduce waste in the military by closing unnecessary bases without individual congressmen being responsible, and insulating the closure procedures from politics.
At the time, I lived in Hampton, Virginia, whish is surrounded by military bases galore: Langley AFB, Norfolk Naval Base, NAS Oceane, NWS Yorktown, Fort
UselessEustis, Fort Story, Fort Monroe, just a whole host of bases. BRACC didn’t bite too deeply into Hampton Roads, because the bases were mostly large commands, though some of the smaller installations were closed.“Liberals fear freedom, individual liberty, and their fellow Americans”
The statement above was mine. It was a broad over generalization and not conducive to good debate, but as I said in my blog post, we’re all human and thus will occasionally make such generalizations.
Actually, Dana, Dick Cheney was the one (I believe) who put Carswell on the list. It had had an inspection 2 years previously and been told what it needed to pass inspection. All items were done and the base passed. Then the base was closed by that commission. It’s very difficult to assume there was no political maneuvering in that decision because, at the time, the Fort Worth delegation was very weak.
There are lots of people in this county who would not vote for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004 because Dick Cheney was on the ticket. Hard feelings last for many, many years.
Pandora,
While I would agree that it is in society’s best interest that the poor not be poor, two problems are present here. One is that there will always be a bottom 20% in any country, and our poor are definitely not poor by the standards of the world.
The second problem is in determining which is the best way of solving poverty? Through government handouts or private charity? I’ve done a fair share of charity work over the years and I’ve always been amazed at how shrewd those do-gooders are. They know all about the dangers of handing out fish instead of teaching fishing.
Sharon – Has there ever been a welfare state that actually lifted the poor out of poverty? It seems that social welfare only exacerbates poverty by encouraging people to stay poor (but cared for) by the government.
The political spectrum cannot be adequately defined using the traditional left-right, Liberal-Conservative conventions.
During the death rattles of the Evil Empire, those who longed for a return of Stalinism were designated as the conservatives while the liberals favored free market economics.
Libertarians defined their enemies as statists, a term familiar to all those who have read Ayn Rand. Yet are her works to be taken literally or allegorical?
Pure Libertarianism may define goals but would not an asymptotic libertarianism be a more practical approach? How many sophomoric newcomers to political activism see libertarianism as a cover for anarchy, a fleeting an immeasurable
state between chaos and tyranny?
Any system in its purest state is impractical. In the name of economic freedom, would be eliminate every safety net in the interst of what was once called ‘the rugged individualist’?
Yet we must realize the harm that has always followed tight central planning that ignores the role of the Invisible Hand.
There is room (and need) for honest an open debate of a wide range of subjects.
How many dare to participate?
I think it’s pretty simple. If you don’t provide some basic necessities for the poor, they will fuck up your shit. If the history of communism and capitalism has taught me anything, it’s that liberalism is how capitalism defeats communism. Without Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps, our society would have either collapsed into armed conflict or turned into an authoritarian police state to force everyone to stay in line.
Hey, you’re welcome. Always remember that the unequal distribution of wealth depends on the consent of the masses. Stabilty comes from the idea of equal opportunity – giving people what they need to give them the chance to use their talents to get ahead.
TAX, TAX, TAX….don’t you get it! While you all are so focused on taxes, deregulation is eatting your lunch. Example: the current housing bust and credit crisis is due to deregulation of the financial and mortage industries.