This is a delicate argument. But, I think, an important one.
I see big differences between liberals and conservatives. And I especially see big differences between the older conservatives and the newer ones of the past five or six years.
I see a sort of degeneration of Republican office holders, our current leaders. And it goes to the deeper levels of experience--to my mind. I see current conservatives focusing to a greater extent then they did previously on money issues, e.g. reducing income taxes, eliminating inheritance taxes, repairing or replacing social security, reduction of welfare benefits, reducing/privatizing Medicaid or healthcare services, etc. The list of such ideas, possible and actual legislation, goes on and on.
As I see it, conservative leaders attempt to manipulate the other parts of the world thru the manipulation of money—seemingly simple fixes: take welfare money away from the poor and they will just go out and find jobs, work; offer even more stimulus to the rich (lower taxes) and to the business man (reduced regulations and taxes) and they will automatically work harder.
Simple, straightforward ideas, but are they effective? My belief is that they are not. Life is more complicated. Oftentimes, when a person has less money, he or she turns to crime or is driven into a deeper hole. When frustration with the political system increases, one is more likely to turn to a tyrant that provides even more meaningless, destructive, or overly simplified solutions.
A case in point is how we raise our children. I don’t believe anyone would say that raising children should be done with only one tool. If all we did in bringing up children was use rewards, treats, allowances and such, and punishments (the taking away of these things) we would be doing a disservice to our children. They are not rats in a behaviorist’s box. They need some affection, consideration, and some reason--minimally. This is good for each side, parents and children. Such consideration is also important for our neighbors, our city’s residents, our state’s general welfare, our country as a whole—and all the particulars within. They shouldn’t be rewarded and punished with one tool in isolation.
Over the past few years I see more and more of this manipulation of the social fabric with money, like in a gigantic Skinner box. The power of money has grown out of proportion to its real value. And self-centeredness and selfishness has ensued
As I see things, liberals have a more comprehensive approach to many of the problems in our society. They seek a restoration of balance. One of the great achievements over the past fifty years has been the growth of the middle-class—the quiet majority who go about their work, don’t rock the boat, and devote a portion of themselves for those who need a little extra. This appears to be disappearing too as we move toward becoming a nation of polarity, of rich and poor, of second- and third-world political manipulation--more animal-like--as folks move away from a balanced life.
Balance is important. I don’t mean the type of balance where one group has about as much power as its opposing group. I mean a moderation--of nothing to excess. My mother used to tell me, as I suspect many other mothers told their children, “Eat all your food; there’re kids in China who don’t get supper.” It didn’t mean much at the time, except that it was a shot across my bow saying “Finish your food now.” It means more to me nowadays. It means watch for those extremes and attempt to rectify them as best you can.
I read an article a number of months back about the increase in sales of Italian yachts. It was about the rapid increase in sales of these things to the rich and, especially, to American rich. Most of them were in the $20-40 mil range, but a few were in the $100 million range. I see this as excess in the context of all the poverty in this country.
I think owning a boat can be a good thing, but in the context of impoverishing the poor further it seems extreme. By way of example, I just read an article in BusinessWeek about the option-ARMs that are starting to trigger higher mortgage rates and driving many folks closer to bankruptcy and/or losing their homes. One can surely say “Buyer beware.” to these folks, that it was their fault for taking such a mortgage in the first place. But at the same time we had a gov’t so uncautiously free with low interest rates (below inflation rates in 2003-2004) and a willingness not to supervise the banking industry as credit requirements were eased to ever lower levels, allowing people access to money that even a few years before would have been prohibited. The gov’t allowed and, in fact, nurtured excess and stupidity. What comes back to all of us for allowing that is a potential loss in our home values as nature and the market restores itself to balance. And it may be at a time when we most need that home to sustain its value. Too bad it is happening this way. We could have easily prevented it.
So, I see liberals as proponents of restoring balance to the system. They tend to see the graver mistakes as they are legislated and enacted and see the consequences and fallout to come. We currently have an administration that almost revels in allowing extremes to get out of hand, thinking things are different this time. This, in fact, is exactly what has happened over the past few years. The housing bubble is an example.
Another example of a thing in the process of going awry is the greed factor. When money becomes easy to get, the satiation point increases disproportionately: the more money one gets, the more one wants. The economy starts going awry. Hedge funds are a good example of this process. A few of them, even a moderate number, are alright. But now we have an excessive number of them buying up companies, stripping them of their assets, loading them with debt, and then dumping them back on the market--all serving no real good business purpose--not improving productive situations at all, but making huge amounts of cash for those who do the stripping. Another recent problem is the options timing manipulation schemes that are becoming evident over the past few months. Executives worry more about extracting every last bit of cash--legally or otherwise--out of the company, rather than doing a good job for a fair payment. Greed warps priorities; extreme greed warps our leaders, warps us. Yet we pass tax laws that encourage the formation of more greed. Moderation in laws, e.g. a progressive income tax, helps alleviate or reduce this tendency. It mildly pulls folks back toward moderation, keeps them a little more balanced. One is tugged away from an extreme and toward the middle.
Those at the bottom also need a bit of help. They need that helping hand to get them up a notch. This doesn’t mean a handout. It just means some multi-functional assistance to get them out of a hole that they may or may not have dug themselves. It should be offered to those with a desire to use it. Simple and straightforward. But as long as one is willing to work on pre-established goals and make regular ‘objective’ improvements, different in each individual case, one should have that help. Cutting all the strings so that one has to fend for oneself isn’t a solution, it’s the creation of a disaster.
We shouldn’t further the creation of extremes. Time to rebalance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient