What Do Conservatives Want?
Laurie Meunier Graves, editor of the Wolf Moon Press, wrote a thoughtful piece in the wake of Hurricane Katrina called, "What Do Conservatives Want?" The essay echoes many of my own thoughts about the impact of the tax cuts and contempt that conservatives have for social programs:
"What do conservatives want? Do they really want a country that ranks “43rd in the world in infant mortality”? Do they really want a country where people’s teeth go black and fall out because they can’t afford to go to a dentist? Do they really want a country that thinks nothing of abandoning poor people when a natural disaster strikes? Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I can’t believe that most conservatives want this."
This is my issue with the conservatives as well. Sure, tax cuts seem good, but think of the impact on people for a moment. The US is the wealthiest country on the planet, no? We should be proud to live in a country where poverty has basically been eradicated. Yet, it isn't so, and many (conservatives) believe that the poor have only their own damn selves to blame. It boggles the mind that many of us (conservatives) believe that it is OK to enact policy that allows so much of this country's wealth to be hoarded among so few, while others go without basic healthcare coverage.
Graves' article focuses largely on healthcare issues, and they are central to the problem. We live in a country where people openly mock Canada's National Health Care policies. Yet ever more of our citizens cross the border to get their prescriptions filled in Canada, where the drugs are affordable. If Canada's system is so innately terrible, why can they afford prescriptions while US citizens can't? I also have family in Arizona, and they've been known to drive three hours to cross into Mexico for dental work, because Medicare won't cover it and the cost from the US dentists is so prohibitive.
Think about that for a moment. My impression is that about 95% of the population of this country thinks of Mexico as a third-world country. Yet a US Citizen can go there and get good treatment for a lot less than they can get in this country. It's shameful.
But it doesn't stop with healthcare. We develop all kinds of new housing projects that are aimed toward wealthy or upper-middle-class residents, because the developers can turn a tidy profit. Yet low-income housing is so difficult to come by that too many of our citizens live in substandard housing, or on the streets. We don't support victims of domestic abuse with adequate services. Women are often forced to choose between living with an abusive partner or living without a roof. There are many, many other examples.
I can hear the counterarguments already. "You're never going to be able to eliminate poverty;" "if you give people handouts, they will sit around and just take the handouts." And both are true. I don't believe that we can eradicate 100% of the poverty in this country. And there will always be people who take advantage of ("cheat") the welfare systems. But the fact that there are going to be some exceptions, in my opinion, is no justification to enact policies to deny help to those (many more people) who can be helped, but don't wish to make a career of it. Conservative policy in this country has become mean policy, though (to paraphrase Graves again), I don't believe that most conservatives are mean people.
So, what do the conservatives want? And better yet, why do they want it? The vast majority of those who voted the "conservative" line in the last election will never in their lives be in a position (i.e. be wealthy enough) to actually benefit from the policies favored by the current administration. We need to educate the masses about the impact of these decisions, and fast. The changes that this society needs to make can either be implemented peacefully, by electing politicians who are in favor of social programs (you cynics may issue your challenges here). Otherwise, it can be a less pleasant process, marked by confrontation and social unrest. I am in favor of the former, and I hope that this country can begin again to move in the right direction, starting with the 2006 elections.
posted by Joe @ 12:31 PM
11 Comments:
"And there will always be people who take advantage of ("cheat") the welfare systems: You mean like Ken Lay, Dennis Kozwalski, Michael Milliken, Leona Helmsey, Microsoft anti-trust suit defendants, etc?
Everytime one of these wealthy asses "cheats" at capitalism you don't hear Sam Brownback or Rush Limbaugh call for the radical overhaul of capitalism or the abolishing of business as a system. I wonder why.
People on both sides who use the sins of the few to cynically punish the many are infantile greedy assholes.
"Hypocrisy" is the subject of another post.
Nice tie-in to corporate "welfare", of which we hear nary a peep from the right-wing brown-shirts.
As I've written about regarding a universal wage, there are benefits to paying people a wage they can live on. One of the most basic is the sense of dignity that it imparts to those receiving it.
I'm convinced that many on the right, aware of their own failings, continually project them onto others. Look at people like the "pervert", Bill O'Reilly, who continually harasses those of the opposite sex. Limbaugh is a junkie, Bennett has a gambling addiction (add to them, Weasel's wall of shame). All failed human beings like the rest of us. The difference with them and those that might have an ounce of compassion, is we recognize our shortcomings and realize that our strength lies in our diversity and coming together, not in some primal social-darwinism.
I try to be as gracious as I can with others I disagree with, but these thugs refuse to move an inch towards finding common ground. Hence, we need to do all within our power to combat their lies.
What do Conservatives Want?
Well they should start with some informed discourse of substance rather than what I saw in the original article and your subsequent commentary.
Both tend towards the light side with very little hard data or firm policy suggestions. Besides of course the idea that more taxes is good and fewer taxes is bad.
For example: It is stated that the United States is 43rd in the world for infant mortality. correct. The US is #184 of 226 nations (the higher number being the better). The best is Singapore with 2.29 infant deaths per 1,000 live births - the US is at 6.50. So what does this mean? How about this Fact: The infant mortality rate in the United States reached a historic low of 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 (see National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 2003). ( It seems to have continued to improve to date)
On the misleading side: DC is compared to somewhere in India which has a 56.29 infant mortality rating.
So why is infant mortality in Washington DC bad as compared to the rest of the country?
Here's the reason:
Infant mortality rates were higher for mothers who had no prenatal care, were adolescents, did not complete high school, were unmarried, or who smoked during pregnancy.
So to someone who thinks seriously about the subject the real question is: How do you prevent unmarried, teenage, high school dropout smokers from having babies? Many (not all cause they are not monolithic) Conservatives tend to believe that these issues cannot be addressed through government programs. Additionally it can be argued that the Liberal left's moral relativity and anti-religious fervor has done more to harm these at risk children than Conservatives could ever do. A Staggering 68.2% of all births by African American mothers are to unmarried women. This rate raises to an Incredible 96.1% for teenage black women. (CDC data)
What is the real crime here?
What price has the young of DC paid for the Free Love mantra of the 60s? What price the idea that marriage isn't important? That it's just another choice? That it's ok to father a child and then abandon your child/children? the idea that religion and social mores are to be discarded and reviled.
Well now you know.
What Government Program do you propose that would address this issue?
Or is this an issue to just mindlessly blame on Conservatives? After all that is a lot easier than looking at the underlying facts, which might make you think that maybe, just maybe, this is a problem screaming for personal responsibility.
(The Maternal and Child Health Library website of Georgetown University was instrumental in providing information noted above)
Demosthenes; I am surprised you missed out on the chance to attack the role of food stamps in improving nutrition and contributing to the earlier onset of sexual maturity in DC teens.
We can agree to disagree if you want, but "moral relativity and anti-religious fervor" has probably less to do with teenage pregnancy than grinding poverty and poor education. Do we really want to lay this at the door of irreligiosity? After all, God knocked the teenaged Mary up while her husband was at work. Very moral.
LOL - At least you started to discuss some actual government programs. Although I'm not certain what science you are hanging you're hat on with the food stamps - early maturity connection.
How do you account for a 96.1% illigitimate birth rate? That means that not even 4 on 100 children born have a father.
How do you account for this? And seriously: What government program do you think will address this issue? The Food Stamp program that you mention surely gives these children a lifeline that is desperately needed (assuming that the parent doesn't waste it). But that addresses the symptom - not the underlying illness.
It is common knowledge that the highest correlation to childrens poverty is being brought up by a single parent.
So cheeky shots at religion aside (and yes the knocked up Mary thing is funny) - what do you bring to the table?
C'mon, Des. If you're going to accuse others of playing games with statistics, at least be courteous enough not to do so yourself:
"How do you account for a 96.1% illigitimate birth rate? That means that not even 4 on 100 children born have a father."
I'm going to venture a guess that even if African-American teenagers in DC had the desire for in vitro fertilization (unlikely), they don't have access to it. I think 100 of 100 have a father. I'll grant you that many of them don't have a fater figure in their lives, but those who do represent far more than 4%. "Unmarried parents" <> "no father".
The fact that you have latched on to this one argument suggests that you have no counter to anything else. You may find "illegitimate" childran morally repugnant. I find the following cycle repugnant:
1) Company W decides not to pay health benefits to employees to boost profitability.
2) Employees either go without healthcare, or receive government assistance.
3) Government lowers taxes on the people boosting profits by eliminating health care.
4) Government pays for tax cuts by cutting Medicare and Medicaid.
I guess we all have our own priorities.
Demosthenes: "So cheeky shots at religion aside (and yes the knocked up Mary thing is funny) - what do you bring to the table?"
Nothing. Seriously, nothing. I'm a comic, not a domestic policy guy. My job is like that of Edgar Renteria; get to first and hope someone behind me hits one out of the park so I can get home.
I will say this. Explain to little thickie me how you can rely so heavily on seemingly objective statistics and then argue that the subjective value judgements of conservative morality and anti-scientific religion deserve the central roles in rescuing society from itself? I may not have a governmental program readily to hand, but I'm pretty certain a sectarian non-governmental one is no more likely to help. I really don't think parachuting William Bennett into a L'il Jon video is the solution to this.
I am with you on the corrosive effects of the boomer generation and their constant nobbing around. If things had been different in the sixties we might have been spared "Oprah" and those horribly self-congratulatory investment commercials.
Fair Question Weasel.
Whenever I see statistics or hear of a problem, the first thing I ask is "why". Ok really the first question I ask is if I believe it, and then "why". Then I look around for some hard information (facts) and more often then not I find some information that is intriguing - yet still needs to be understood.
Side Note: President Bush has allocated funding to a govt program to promote marriage. Of course it wasn't well received by critics and I have no idea of it's status or success/failure.
But fact gathering is still not the same as understanding. Of course people understand things differently based upon their experiences. Therein lies the fun.
In the end we are taking about people and subjective values come into play. Yesterday the Nobel prize in Economics was awarded to Aumann and Schelling for "having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis".
Fascinating.
So hard-soft-hard-soft-hard-soft.
Joe
This one argument? Healthcare seemed to be a prime focus of Ms. Graves editorial and your post. I find it suspect that examining a topic (infant mortality in DC) considered by the both of you to be noteworthy is percieved to be evidence of a lack of ideas.
Is it more appealing to you to rattle off a fact and then move on without actually thinking about it?
And yes all the children were fathered, but your excitability over a point that was tangential to the discussion is not to your credit.
Finally your pass stating that I "may find illegitimate children morally repugnant" is snide at best and something else at worst. I discuss the factors that contribute to a high rate of infant mortality, and your cheap response is to reply that I find the children themselves repugnant. Reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
On to Business:
Here's an interesting tidbit about Liberals and Taxes. In Massachusetts during the bust years of the late 80s under Dukakis the state government passed a temporary state income tax increase to 5.95% from 5.0% to carry the state through tougher times. So what happened when economically good times returned? Did the legislature return to the 5.0%? Not a chance. Finally in 2001 the people of Massachusetts by referendum approximately 56% to 44%.
Well an funny thing happened. Due to the overwhelming response (44%) to keep the higher tax rate, the State of Massachusetts allowed taxpayers to voluntarily pay the higher rate (then 5.85%) instead of 5.6% (it was a graduated reduction back to 5.0%).
So how many of your tax happy brethren opted to pay the 5.85% rate? Less than 1%. It is of note that John Kerry chose not to pay the voluntary rate in 2003.
Seems liberals like to keep their own money also.
I guess I believe that belaboring the point of the DC infant mortality rate is sort of taking us away from the larger point that there are far too many uninsured people in this country. The fact that so many Americans don't have access to sufficient healthcare is, in my opinion, shameful.
As for the point about "Liberals" not wanting to pay higher taxes, well that's an entirely different discussion. I'm not speaking for anybody other than myself here, but it's not that I like to pay taxes, it's that I understand the need to pay taxes in order for the government to provide needed services to its constituency.
For everybody to pay their fair share, I should add.
The issue here, then, is what is appropriate government spending? I want to government to give better care to the poor and uninsured. I want the government to protect the environment, and to provide incentives for the development and use of sustainable energy sources.
I don't want the government to spend billions of dollars to secure Iraq's oil. I don't want no-bid, no-cap contracts handed out to cronies of the administration. There are countless pork barrel programs that cost billions of taxpayer dollars.
I don't want humanitarian spending cut at the expense of wasteful government spending. I don't want humanitarian spending cut at the expense of tax cuts for the mega rich. And I don't want the administration to toot it's own horn about cutting taxes when it's just building a big debt for future generations to pay.
Of course nobody in Mass is paying the higher tax rate. If the government says it doesn't need to spend the money, I'm not going to hand it over to them, either. But if they have good programs in place, I'm happy to pay my share.
We would all pay lower taxes, even if health and welfare spending was increased, if all the other waste and corporate welfare were done away with.
Post a Comment
<< Home