Why I Became a Democrat
I had been a Republican all my life but fives years ago I changed political parties. I decided not to become an Independent even though I basically am one. I thought the Democratic party would give a little more definition to what I think. So why the change? Here's why:
1. The Kyoto Protocol. This environmental agreement was negotiated by at least two Presidential administrations, one being George Bushes own father, but he threw the whole thing out the window without even a debate.
2. Fiscal irresponsibility. For years the Republicans have accused the Democrats of being fiscally irresponsible. Tax and spend, right? Now Republicans control Washington, and I have not seen such waste in spending and borrowing in my lifetime.
3. Preemptive war. We are seeing the results of this in Iraq. Never the less, powerful voices in Washington are calling for premptive strikes on Iran and Korea before this President leaves office. This is simply madness.
4. National health care. We are the only industrialized country in the world with out some kind of national health provision. Why? Insurance companies and lawyers, pure and simple. Sad but true.
5. Civil rights. Republicans always argued for less government. More personal freedom. Remember that? Now that they run things we have seen huge growth in government and a major reduction in civil rights. The assumption is that the government will always be benevolent. History would indicate otherwise.
So that is it. There are a couple other immaterial reasons I became a Democrat, one of which is just a general observation. It is that Republicans are meaner that Democrats. Stack up Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh against say Al Franken and Jon Stewart. The later are funny, the former are funny and mean. It just says something about there character, and maybe about the character of those who agree with them. And do the Republicans represent Christian values? I hope not.
That's it...so what do you think?
1. The Kyoto Protocol. This environmental agreement was negotiated by at least two Presidential administrations, one being George Bushes own father, but he threw the whole thing out the window without even a debate.
2. Fiscal irresponsibility. For years the Republicans have accused the Democrats of being fiscally irresponsible. Tax and spend, right? Now Republicans control Washington, and I have not seen such waste in spending and borrowing in my lifetime.
3. Preemptive war. We are seeing the results of this in Iraq. Never the less, powerful voices in Washington are calling for premptive strikes on Iran and Korea before this President leaves office. This is simply madness.
4. National health care. We are the only industrialized country in the world with out some kind of national health provision. Why? Insurance companies and lawyers, pure and simple. Sad but true.
5. Civil rights. Republicans always argued for less government. More personal freedom. Remember that? Now that they run things we have seen huge growth in government and a major reduction in civil rights. The assumption is that the government will always be benevolent. History would indicate otherwise.
So that is it. There are a couple other immaterial reasons I became a Democrat, one of which is just a general observation. It is that Republicans are meaner that Democrats. Stack up Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh against say Al Franken and Jon Stewart. The later are funny, the former are funny and mean. It just says something about there character, and maybe about the character of those who agree with them. And do the Republicans represent Christian values? I hope not.
That's it...so what do you think?
posted by Jim at 10:42 AM
13 Comments:
alright, bub. you asked ;-)
i don't think you really belong with the Dems, just like i don't . join me in the Cynical Center! ;-)
all national-level politicians have been bought and sold. if politics is compromise, they are so compromised it's hard to see how they can do us much good.
1. Kyoto's not a slam-dunk, as i just posted on my weblog.
2. the Dems are just as badly irresponsible.
3. i'm with my (moonlighting) boss who says failed nations like Iraq don't get the same sovereign status as nations that reasonably serve their people. Kim Jong Il is a megalomaniac who is literally starving his people to death, stuntedness, and lower IQs. if we could work a deal with China to relieve him of command, it would be a service to his people.
4. true. and we also have an economy without equal. do we want to fool with it? can the gov't be trusted with healthcare? does Canada have that great a deal.i don't think it's as simple as you say.
5.this one is more of a concern for me, too. i think the over-simplified fix is more transparency. the safer i want to be, the more information i have to give. but the government needs to be much more open about what it's doing...
i agree with your critque of Repub spirit. on the other hand, so many Dems are elitist and anti-religious. that goes down hard...
it's a fun topic, though. thanks! :-)
1 - Ditto Sean's comments - Kyoto is far more about politics than science. Clinton and the Dems never brought it up for a vote for good reason. A great read on this is from Harm de Blij on "Why Geography Matters".
2 - You are arguing a conservative viewpoint (as many who criticize Bush) and you would become a DEM???
3 - Politics involves a lot of flexibility (REPS going from no nation building to Iraq). DEMS have a long track record of preemptive war - I wouldn't trust this position of the day... even though I find pre-emptive war appropriate under the right circumstances (ala Tom Barnett).
4 - Are you kidding? Those systems (and I have been the 'beneficiary' more than once of those 'ideal' systems) don't compare to what we have (see Russell Roberts' recent podcast at econtalk.org) even though we are also in need of repair.
5 - I don't get what you mean. The DEMS have managed to keep some of their constituent groups addicted to their peculiar kinds of welfare in a state of semi-permanent underclass. Initiatives like school vouchers and social security reform would have a net benefit for civil rights concerns. A great blogosphere exampleis Tammy Bruce who convincingly argues that DEMS base is composed of 'though police'.
+ Can't at all agree with you on this either... The civil DEMS are the exception (Peter Beinart, et al) and having met Franken in person I found him rude and obnoxious whereas most REPS I find to be far more civil and courteous (in the blogosphere see Keith Thompson's Sane Nation for well documented examples)
In any case this is your decision (I too see myself as essentially an independent and haven't given the REPS a penny) and I hope you end up being a force for rationale and positive influence. (Though with Zell Miller's departure and Lieberman's recent defeat this seems a rather difficult proposition.)
Thanks for the comments! I doubt I'll change either of your minds, but I think I'll push back on this.
First...forget Kyoto, just the fact that the Reps made Jim Infoff (R/OK) the Chair of the Congressional Enviromental Commitee is proof enough of a low priority on the environment. For example, he thinks global warming is a hoax! He dismisses the whole idea. It's not even up for discussion.
Second, I think pre-emptive war in the case of Iraq was wrong. That was my view before we ever went in. However, I might say it was the unilateral feel that bothered me the most. Pre-emptive in an international movement might, and that very carefully, be alright in certain cases. (ala Jimmy Carter)
Third, hell no I'm not kidding! Our health care system only works for the rich/insured and healthy. No system is perfect, but from my seat, I've seen people who had good finances put in bankrupcy due to unisured medical costs. Some of these had material net worth before the bomb dropped. We need some kind of nation health provision, a safety net of sorts. Any one of us could become a victim of the current system.
Third, I don't think the Dems are sterling on civil rights either. My feel is that the Reps mislead us on this. (Small government and all that.) The attitude of both parties bother me now.
Last, I'm sure the Reps have a mean streak. However, I am not so sure they are as anti religious as they get portrayed.
I suppose I declared Dem when I stopped being Rep just to further my point. I would love a "cynical middle" to get some traction in national politics.
This has been a good discussion! Thanks.
yeah, man. push back! ;-)
1. no argument that the Repubs don't care much about the environment. otoh, like i mentioned on the Kyoto thing, what has science really proven on global warming? i'm not saying it's not happening, but, does it deserve to be a foregone conclusion? again, i think the Copenhagen Consensus, or something like it, is the way to go, here.
2. it smacked of 'unilateralism', and Bush's rhetoric certainly gave that vibe, but it wasn't as unilateral as it appeared. any idea how much of our sovereign debt is owned by Japan and China? 3/5ths, maybe? they didn't object to the degree or selling it back. in fact, Tom argues that it's their purchase of our sovereign debt that makes our mighty military possible.
3. health care safety nets: yes. socialized medicine: i'm not convinced.
4. i think we actually disagree on this one (unless you change your mind ;-). the Dem's aren't anti-religious, as long as you're not an absolutist. sure, their chair, Howard Dean, who i actually like to some degree, will talk about connecting with people of faith. but if you stand up for One Truth or something in the neighborhood of 'maybe God created the universe and evolution is not the end-all', good night Irene. i interact with these people everyday on the internet, and they think those two positions i just enumerated are stark. raving. mad.
very well, i can see where this is all going. i accept the Cynical Center nomination!. and thank you! ;-)
Too all you conservatives - if you can live with yourself that 40 million people do not have health care fine. No it isn't just singles and young people. One of my friends had to bring back Lipitor from Taiwan so that her father could live. seems he is unemployed in his late fifties and can't afford the United States health care - so the socialist countries have to bail him out or he dies. Under our system, he dies. There has to be a better way.
And I have not met anyone from those countries that would take our health care over theirs -inspite of their failings - ours has worse failings in my opinion.
And pre-emptive war? yes the democrats have had their share - Vietnam comes to mind. Does that excuse pre-emptive war now? Shouldn't we learn from the past? How about the guns and butter approach of Bush. We can cut taxes while we have a two front war - now that is hilarious. And no, the poor are not helped by tax cuts. Businesses and the upper middle class and rich are. And nobody has shown that it has trickled down to the poor in our country.
I would not consider myself a democrat. They have problems too, but these issues certainly would make one pause about advocating the republicans.
flame away boys, flame away
Charlie,
I challenge you to look into that statistic about 40 million people (you presume they are poor). For a reasoned look at this check out the podcast at: EconTalk
It is too bad that your friend needs Lipitor a drug that may end up hurting more than it helps. I prefer to (spend my personal money) on quality Omega-3 along with diet and excercise. My cholesterol levels are now fantastic.
I know plenty of (foreign national) people that would disagree with you about your viewpoint on our healthcare system. (Of course free sounds irresistable but expensive private medicine flourishes in some of these countries.) Another aspect is to consider our immigration demand - our healthcare system doesn't hinder that demand (though you need to look at the 'package' as a whole).
No need to flame we're all civil here.
I am not talking about free medicine. I am talking about the fact that small business people can't afford to give their people decent health care and when they can, it is outrageously expensive. For my family, my health care costs me $500 a month (I'm from a midwest state). yet if I lose my job, I would have to pay over $1000 a month in COBRA or hopefully I have $5000 in the bank to get a HCA. That is what needs to change. A lot of people do not have health care - It is my opinion that the 40m number has merit, though I understand the debate, The number is significant even on a conservative level - no they are not all considered poor by income mean standards, but they can't afford health care or the their business can't afford it and when they lose their jobs, they have nothing because they aren't considered truly poor (the poor can get healthcare including much of the immigrant population). Nothing has been done to help these people. HCA's help people who already have money, but not the poor or those with low income. The bottom line is too many people in this country don't have or can't afford health care and many of us are screwed if our company "right sizes" or decides to become "more efficient." No body on this blog is immune to that and it should truly concern you. I have been through a "redirection" and had too pay out the nose for healthcare when I could least afford it. I wonder if your foreign national friends understand that they would have no health care if they lost their jobs. Or that if they went to the ER it would cost them much of their assets to pay the bill?
Yes private healthcare does flourish in foreign countries (ie. England and Germany). Thats fine. The rich can get their elective surgery. But all people have access to basic healthcare and essential healthcare - even if they lose their jobs.
I think this is where the U.S. is lacking - too many people are falling through the gaps.
hmm, charlie: you must not be addressing me b/c i am not a conservative. but i will respond, anyway. ;-) is this charlie Jim's brother, btw?
can i live with myself relative to other people's healthcare? why not expand globally? why stop at the border?
do you believe that there is life after death? if so, there's more to life than avoiding death.
plus, is the government the best safety net? they have a pretty good track record when it comes to wasting money and not even serving people well.
you need to get out more... haven't you heard of all the people who come to the US for A-1 health care because they can't get it at home? still, 'health tourism' (eg, American flies to Thailand for cheaper surgery) is increasing all the time...
tax revenue relative to tax cuts is a tricky one for me. some studies show we actually have more revenue now.
i certainly agree with Stuart that there's no need for flaming.
the high cost of health care and those who cannot afford it are real problems. too many people are falling through the cracks - no doubt.
but i'm conservative enough to doubt that more government or socialized medicine or something of that ilk is the answer.
in the end, i don't really know. i lean toward thinking we should take care of the 'least' first. but, otoh, our national economy is amazing, and that much money covers over a lot of sins. would i rather we were more like Canada? Scandinavia? i have my doubts...
Sean. Yeah, that is my brother. He gets free medical, incidently. It's a Socialist country where he lives.
I asked him to comment. He really is for Univ Health!!...and worked for an HMO years ago. He has stories!
Univ Health would be nice. i just doubt that the journey, not to mention the destination would be worth trading in what we have. i doubt the gov't would do a good job. i doubt the result would be great.
that said, i certainly appreciate Charlie, his comments, and his perspective.
Just a thought.
This was pointed out to me several years ago. That the government does not run EVERTHING poorly.
Take the postal service for instance. We might complain about them at times, but do we ever think twice about dropping a letter in the mailbox? Nope, we are pretty confident it will reach its destination. So, the PO functions and delivers what they promise.
I just don't think the delivery system we have now in health would be worse if government run for the same basic reason that I don't worry about mail...
But, I have been wrong before. It was back in 1975...HA HA... :-)
the USPS is ok...
just not as good as FedEx and UPS ;-)
and heavily subsidized!
doudoune moncler, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, ugg, canada goose, canada goose uk, pandora uk, moncler outlet, louis vuitton, links of london, pandora charms, moncler outlet, supra shoes, swarovski, pandora jewelry, hollister, doke gabbana, juicy couture outlet, ugg pas cher, vans, canada goose outlet, hollister, moncler, canada goose, nike air max, louis vuitton, louis vuitton, canada goose jackets, louis vuitton, lancel, karen millen uk, wedding dresses, pandora jewelry, gucci, converse outlet, ray ban, canada goose, marc jacobs, barbour uk, replica watches, moncler, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, toms shoes, barbour, converse, juicy couture outlet, louis vuitton, montre pas cher, canada goose outlet, swarovski crystal, thomas sabo, canada goose outlet, coach outlet, moncler
Post a Comment
<< Home