Another Year at the City

The Great Blog City has added downsizing to its share of difficulties. Play the song "Abraham, Martin, and John," and you'll get the same sense of lost wandering that has been developing in the City in recent months.

If you see one of your colleagues this week, be happy that (s)he's still around. Most of all, what we need to remember is that we're a single team. If we stay together, no outside forces (governors, presidents, regents, legislators) is able to tear us apart.

Carry on now.

Episode 40 -- Interlude #2

Still having trouble sleeping, the Obese American continued to listen to the two spirits: Barry and Tom. Our hero asked...

QUESTION: “Then what is Liberalism?”

TOM: “Conservatism is the belief that reduced federal control leads to the greater good. Since the purpose of Government is to oppress people, and since people are basically good, greater involvement by government in the lives of its citizens leads to tyranny, whereas reduced government control allows people to flourish under the banners of Liberty and Freedom. True conservatives are independent spirits who want what is best for America.”

BARRY: “I disagree with your definition. Many so-called conservatives seem to want to control the citizens whenever it agrees with their objectives. Consider the conservative positions on abortion and on the legalization of certain drugs.”

QUESTION: “That's a good point, isn't it?”

TOM: “Barry makes a good point in one respect. People often confuse "conservatism" with the platform of the Republican party. There is no party that stands for pure conservatism, and republicans often confuse conservatism with religious-based tradition. A conservative must consider the issue of government control primarily above all other issues.”

BARRY: “So, you're saying that people who want to restrict gay rights aren't really conservative?”

TOM: “A conservative would not want the federal government to control the issue one way or another. States can define civil unions however they please. A federal government run by conservatives would not claim to sanction "marriage" for the fifty states -- a right that belongs only to God. Further, it would not force the states to adhere to a single standard that it defines.

“This was the problem with Roe v. Wade. Conservatives are often misrepresented as wanting to "outlaw abortion." Overturning Roe v. Wade would do no such thing; rather, it would allow the states to create their own laws instead of forcing the states to follow a single, federal rule. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds merely by hearing that case. They should have said, "The constitution does not speak about abortion; therefore, we have no authority."”

QUESTION: “And we should legalize pot?”

TOM: “That's a view taken by many libertarians, and liberals often agree with them because they want to regulate and tax its sale and distribution. A conservative would say that there shouldn't be any such laws -- whether they are about alcohol, tobacco, or any other substance. Instead, adult citizens ought to be informed of the dangers of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol and should be free to make an informed choice about personal use. Still, it would be up to the states to ban substances and to punish offenders. The federal government should only step in to mediate disagreement between the states. For example, if one state legalizes tobacco and another bans it, the federal government would ask the states to assure that the product would not pass from a state where it was legal into a state where it was banned.”

BARRY: “That's different from what most republicans say.”

TOM: “That's correct. Most republicans respond to the issue by appealing to tradition -- not to science or even reason. However, what we're talking about is the FEDERAL government interfering in the affairs of the states by making something illegal in all fifty states. Localities would be free to ban cocaine, for instance, if the citizens themselves wanted it so.”

BARRY: “The federal government has to protect a state's citizens from one another. You cannot have complete liberty.”

TOM: “A state or local government should be able to define crimes at that level -- without the interference of the federal government. We don't need national speed limits, national abortion laws, or just about any national law. The states should define these issues themselves.”

QUESTION: “Without federal regulation, wouldn't the country degenerate into chaos?”

TOM: “That's what liberals would have you believe: that control is good. They blame various problems on "deregulation" that were actually caused by federal interference. If the feds had not ordered lending institutions to provide risky loans to citizens who lacked financial stability, the current problem with out-of-control spending would not have occurred. The entirety of the current recession stems from government interference. Doing nothing at all would have resolved the financial "bubbles" the way that they always resolved themselves in the past. All we've accomplished here is to create a larger bureaucracy which exists in order to perpetuate itself.”

BARRY: “So if someone thinks that ignoring problems solves them, then that person is a conservative.”

NEXT: Nothing Special -- Hating Everyone

Episode 39 -- Interlude #1

The great superhero known as the Obese American awoke at midnight from a restless slumber to discover two spirits in his bedroom – arguing about politics. The first, named Barry, was formally known as the Spirit of Liberalism; the other, Tom, was the Spirit of Conservatism. Since politics confused him, and since the spirits would not shut up, the hero began asking questions.

QUESTION: “What is Liberalism?”

BARRY: “Liberalism is the belief that increased government control leads to the greater good. Government solves social problems and ultimately brings about Justice. Liberals are kind-hearted people who want what is best for America.”

TOM: “I agree with your definition: liberals want control. I disagree, however, that increased government involvement brings about anything other than bureaucracy and misery.”

QUESTION: “What do you mean?”

TOM: “There are many examples of government programs. Very few of these programs that remain for any length of time serve the public good. The education system is a wreck that is more concerned with bean-counting than with learning. Social Security is always going broke, and yet it provides for a bare existence. If the aim is to assist poor old people, we’d be better off handing out cash on the street. Amtrak rail lines and trains are rarely upgraded, and the trains are late frequently. Rather than helping, the Welfare system encourages people to become addicted to Government. Even the Postal Service survives because private carriers are not permitted to deliver first-class letters. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac created the current disaster precisely because of government interference. I can find no area in which government’s involvement has been beneficial.”

BARRY: “What about health care? Many people depend on Medicare, and many others are without health care. This is a crisis that the government must solve.”

TOM: “In the first place, it’s hardly a crisis. Most people who have no health care plan are in that situation deliberately. Secondly, nationalized health care is a poor alternative. Imagine waiting a year to get treatment! London’s newspapers report about year-long wait times for ten percent of all patients. The government has a “target” time-frame during which they hope to treat patients: that’s four and one-half months.” Canada’s system receives about 70% of its funding from the government. The average wait times for tests like MRI’s can be up to 22 months in some provinces; you might wait three years for surgery. Maybe that’s why 65% of all Canadians have another form of health care, in addition to what the government gives. I’ll stand by what I said: when government is involved, it’s a disaster.”

QUESTION: “What would liberals do for the economy?”

BARRY: “We’ll create millions of jobs with our stimulus package. People need jobs.”

TOM: “Very little of that ‘package’ creates new jobs. One estimate says that maybe 93% of it involves non-stimulative spending. While you’re providing a few dollars here and there, the people will have to pay for those massive spending increases. In the long run, that’ll mean reduced take-home pay.”

BARRY: “We’ll tax businesses –“

TOM: “—who will fire employees so that they can afford to pay the taxes.”

BARRY: “We’ll be fair to them by taxing only rich people.”

TOM: “You’re already doing that. The top 25% of wage earners pay about 86% of all taxes, and the top 1% pay about 39% of all taxes. That’s your idea of fair? Part of the liberal plan gives tax ‘rebates’ to people who don’t pay taxes!”

QUESTION: “Maybe there are a few problems, but what’s wrong with Barry’s plan?”

TOM: “This is how to turn a recession into a depression. First…create a panic. Liberals have done that; George Soros is saying that these times are worse than the Great Depression. People will stop traveling, and they’ll stop spending. Businesses will make less, and they’ll lay people off. Next, spend a lot of money on projects that create very little future infrastructure – like millions for fish hatcheries and electric cars. Some states that might take money are refusing to take it because of the strings attached. Then, because things aren’t really so bad, you pump up the money supply to create inflation – so the people have reduced buying power. Then hike the minimum wage, again forcing businesses to lay people off. Once the people have to pay for the projects, push more projects and more spending on the people – telling them that they’re helpless without the government’s assistance. UCLA economists determined that President Roosevelt’s policies added seven years to the length of the depression.

“If someone, perceiving a problem, thinks that the solution is to smother it with bureaucratic regulations and red tape, that person is a liberal.”

NEXT: What is Conservatism?