The End of Liberalism …NOT!

Conservatives like Joe Scarborough, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and others are using the troubles of the Affordable Health Care Act to push their message that liberalism and government does not work. In their minds, the two go together as a package.

The Republican Conservative machine like Fox News, talk radio, Frank Lutz and politicians are spearheading this message, not your FB Republicans, relatives, or tea party uncle, because they are merely parroting what they hear.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy because if they can get elected based on being anti- government, everything they do to disrupt government progress is a plus. They run on a platform of smaller government and never on efficient government. For example, the FDA may be undermanned but TSA may have too many people working for them. I’ve always found that 16 intelligent gathering agencies make them less efficient.

It’s worth mentioning again, Conservatives are great campaigners, but they suck at governing because it goes against their principles. Their main goal is less government and more free market, but they just want government to protect our country and deliver the mail. They’re doing everything possible to take mail delivery away from them. If that’s the case do we need all those congressmen? The non-libertarian conservatives do want big government when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

We should never underestimate conservatives because they wake up, eat their breakfast cereal, drink their cup of coffee and their minds instantly switches into gear thinking of ways they can indoctrinate the whole country. They eat, sleep and drink this ideology, and it’s as much of them as their religion is. Joe Scarborough is a great example of this, just this morning he introduced Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia as being a great conservative model despite the fact that the governor is mired in a bribery scandal.

On the other hand, Liberals/Progressives do think that government has a role to play, but they’re more compromising. For example, the public option and single payer were not a viable option in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. They settled for universal health care using expanded Medicaid and private insurance companies. Liberals/Progressives do take a firm stance against the voucher system, whether it be in education or Medicare because they see it as a first step toward privatization. I’ve always said that government is the equalizer.

It’s getting a bit confusing because conservatives of all stripes are trying to take the dominant position of the political party they chose to participate in. The old established Republicans talked of small government but expanded the defense department. The new tea party Republicans wants smaller government, but their method puts a choke hold on growth.

Right now, there’s a total distrust in government; unfortunately that will eventually lead to economic failure. Is that the goal of conservatism?

Lessons Learned in Arguing With Conservatives

The first thing I learned was that I was going to need a lot of patience because we were going to go down many rabbits trails before we got to the main topic. I knew I was going to have to take a lot of name calling, sift through the exaggerations, and  I needed to try and calm down my angry opponent. That’s right, I’m satisfied with the last two presidential elections and my opponent is not. An angry person is not likely to make much sense until they cool down.

The conservative is likely to be a Ronald Reagan or a Ron Paul disciple, so they come into the argument with an idea that they are superior and if things somehow don’t go their way, then the system had to be rigged. They seem to think that President Obama couldn’t possibly get those millions of votes legitimately, so he would had to entice his constituents with government goodies. There’s no other possible explanation.

In the VA’s thread titled “America is ineptocrasy not democracy’ “the right-wing commenters wanted to make it about “makers and takers” and they got upset when other posters did not want to follow that storyline. They want to control the dialogue using their talking points rather than facts from reliable sources.

I had to sit patiently while my conservative opponent went through his monologue where he would call the president a socialist, tyrant, illegitimate, or the latest thing he heard from talk radio. I knew that I would be wasting my time trying to refute all those false claims, so I sat there and" bit my tongue" until we could get to the issues. It’s a rope- a- dope tactic.

If we were arguing in front of an audience, my conservative opponent would put on a show, by wildly exaggerating all his points. I had to carefully phrase my opinions and points, so he didn't mock my answers as much, since we are not having a formal debate. A good example is the last comment in the “Voter ID Law No problem in Crossroads” thread where a poster stated “Did you bother to read the article? “The voter ID law hasn't presented any problems. The gloom and doom stories were just that, stories?” The poster doesn’t know that’s such a small sample, that it is not representative sample that we can rely on but he thinks we can’t read.

The conservative is not dumb, but you have to keep repeating the facts that you got from reliable sources because they won’t sink in the first, second or even the third time around. For example, many have moved off the IRS non scandal because there were not enough facts to support their conspiracy, so it quickly became not a matter of concern. Benghazi is still alive to them because they think there are still pieces of evidence around to bring down the Obama Administration or to weaken Hillary Clinton in her presidential run. The Republicans have not come up with any meaningful legislation, so this is all they have to cling to.

Today, the GOP is on a “what did the president know and when did he know it?” strategy. Yesterday’s congressional hearing about the disastrous rollout of the Healthcare.gov website, there were  more questions and statements about the president’s promise that people could keep their crappie insurance policies if they wanted to. It’s too late in the game for the GOP to start playing the “I feel your pain” game because everyone is aware that they have never cared about universal affordable health care.

NO Apologies Needed From The “Holier Than Thou"

A poster named Rosalie Sykora wrote a tongue-in-cheek letter to our editor titled “An apology to liberals for conservative views.” I have no doubt that Rosalie is a decent, god fearing, Christian conservative but it’s views like hers that make me keep my politics secular. When you interject religion into politics at the scale that she does; it leads to a situation like we are seeing in Syria and Egypt.

Bless her heart, Rosalie may have forgotten “Matthew 6:1-34

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven”

I haven’t seen a comparison between liberals and conservatives like she described in a very longtime. It’s as if they look up all the good words in the dictionary and applied it to conservatism and left all the bad definitions to describe liberals.

Rosalie, I certainly don’t back away from supporting black leaders and civil rights activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they are fighting for justice and equality. I certainly am an admirer of the Clintons and President Obama. Like many other legislators, I’ve sided with and have been against the views of Charlie Rangel and Sheila Jackson Lee. You didn’t mention San Diego mayor, Bob Filner, but I believe he belongs in jail and I’m glad that the DNC, and the California Democrats are actively trying to run him out of office. Anthony Wiener needs to grow up and the voters of New York will send him a message. I don’t know what Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, has done to be ashamed of. She was on the staff of Hillary Clinton and is a political consultant, but maybe the fact you don’t like her is that she’s a Muslim.

I don’t think Pope Francis judges any one by their ideology or political affiliation, and I’m fairly certain Mother Theresa would not have either.

I noticed that you mentioned visiting a church and synagogue, but you left out a mosque; was there a message there?

I admire Antoinette Tuff and I don't know her political affiliation or ideology. In case you don't know her (she hasn't received much publicity) she's the good person without a gun who beat a person with a gun that was about to shoot some school children in Georgia.

I commend you for reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but those two documents belong to Christians and non- Christians. I keep those two short documents on my iPad for quick reference, just in case someone misquotes them.

Rosalie, you probably would be surprised that some liberals saw the same movies you did, pray, visit the sick, served in the armed forces and do pretty much do all the things you say you do without the need to let others know how self- righteous they are.I'm always amazed how conservatives wrap themselves around the flag and think that they own the word "patriot."

There’s no doubt liberals have attended X-rated movies, had extra-marital affairs and have done what you would classify as sinful but they don’t profess to be without sin. Several years ago, the GOP ran on a family values platform which is commendable if you can hold that standard. Many conservatives fell from grace and the public was all too happy to call them hypocrites.Conservative thought it was a double standard.

Conservatism, whether you use it in a political or religious context, means that those who adopt that ideology; tend to hold on to their traditional attitudes and values. They are reluctant to change.

Liberalism is rarely used in a religious context because it is about change and justice and many times they are interconnected.

There’s nothing sinister about being a liberal or conservative.

Now I remember How I Used to Talk to A Conservative

A couple of events happened yesterday that made me think of the day’s that I could have a meaningful conversation with my conservative buddies. One had to do with the stoppage of New York’s “Stop and Frisk” policy, and the other had to do with climate change. Hang on a minute, and you’ll see how I tie these two topics together.

This morning Joe Scarborough talked about a liberal he met on the train in New York who was going to vote for Rudy Giuliani for mayor. People like Joe Scarborough wake up and go to sleep every day wearing their conservative label, and they assume that liberals do too. I assume the liberal Joe talked to, liked Rudy Giuliani’s way of crime fighting and the fact that he didn’t come with the extreme social beliefs. Conservatives like to think that they are tough on crime and so a few believe that we cannot give the police too much power. As human beings, we all want the police to keep us safe within the bounds of the United States Constitution.

A Federal judge temporarily stopped New York’s “Stop and Frisk “policy because it was really racial profiling in disguise.

Let’s look at the police’s own statistics that showed that in the period January 2004 until 2012, the city conducted 4.4 million stops but only 6% of those resulted in arrests or summons. Even more staggering, 83% of those stopped were minorities and 90% of those and didn’t get as much as a summons. The policy was meant to get guns off streets but of those stopped, 1.1% of blacks were caught with guns, 1.2% of Hispanics were armed and 1.4% whites were also armed. With stats like these, the judge ruled correctly when it was ruled that the policy needed reform and had to be closely monitored.

Racial profiling is acceptable as long as it’s the other guy getting profiled. I’ve heard stories of young black males having to dress conservatively in order not to arouse suspicion by the police. Middle Eastern people will automatically attract the attention of TSA if they wear traditional clothing. That’s not the America we want. The founders remembered being stopped and frisked by the British soldiers because they were suspected of not being loyal to the crown, so they inserted language into the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to ensure that that will not happen to future Americans.

And now back to the topic of trying to have a meaningful conversation with a conservative.

Last night, Chris Haynes had a very meaningful conversation with Samuel Thernstrom, a conservative expert on climate change. Chris Hayes led off the segment by showing a clip of Dana Rohrabacher, senior member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology calling climate change a fraud, to the delight of a tea party rally. Mr. Thernstrom said that crowd is mostly against government solutions. So if climate change is real, the government would be compelled to do something about it. The environmental expert also said that conservatives don’t like liberal solutions, like a carbon tax or Cap and Trade. Mr. Thernstrom said the base could be sold on private sector innovations that produced zero greenhouse gases. He said that government grants always lead to crony capitalism. That’s a start, at least there’s a consensus that climate-change is indeed happening and that we must take steps to curb greenhouse emissions. I’m not so sure that a carbon tax is a liberal idea and I know that President George Bush senior signed a sulfur dioxide (SO₂) cap and trade bill, to curb acid rain. Who wants to quibble about the past if you’re making progress talking about solutions?

Now do you see how the two topics blend together? In both cases, it’s a matter, of “we didn’t say you couldn’t do it but here’s how it could be done with less controversy.”

It’s just the first bite of the apple

My goodness, you would've thought that the deal that was made to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff was the last chance at legislating.  This morning Joe Scarborough was ranting and raving because for the first time in over 20 years, Republicans raised taxes.  According to Grover Norquist, Republicans lowered taxes but try convincing those who make over $450,000 next year when they get their  tax bill.  Joe went on and on about Paul Ryan voting for a bill (without tax cuts) that will add $4 trillion over the next decade. He was so mad that he said Ryan voted for the $7 trillion Medicare prescription bill a few years ago, so he stripped him of his deficit hawk title.  Joe Scarborough is one of those libertarians / conservatives who think republicans should just be reforming the entitlements and reducing the size of government; nothing else.

For the average Americans, they get to keep their credits for the next five years, so they can plan accordingly.  Economists have told us that business wants certainty, this bill gives them that, so hopefully we will stabilize the markets and increase consumer confidence. American workers will see a 2% reduction in their paychecks because the Social Security payroll deduction rate went back to 6.2%. Two million unemployed Americans got a one year extension of unemployment benefits.Neither party got all they wanted but that's what compromise is all about.

Ricci Ware, radio host for San Antonio's KTSA radio, said liberals were walking around with their chest out because they stuck it to the rich man. He also said that we were headed for a socialist agenda. The libertarian / conservatives are angry because they lost the argument about tax cuts paying for themselves and the hideous thought of ever raising taxes. That small group cannot win national elections on two goals: reducing government and reforming entitlements. We do have to reform entitlements and reduce government, but we have to take a balance approach, and the goal should be efficiency because it's obvious people do not want to give up Social Security and Medicare.

There are two big battles just around the corner: raising the debt limit and the sequester cuts. The president said that he won't partake in a battle to raise the debt limit to pay the bills' Congress agreed to make.  I guess that he could veto the bill and make the Congress pass it with a 2/3 vote, which is virtually impossible.  The leverage on the debt ceiling belongs to the GOP because they have proven that our credit rating and an unstable world financial condition takes a back seat to lowering our deficit and debt. The GOP will hold up other projects President Obama wants to undertake like illegal immigration comprehensive reform, infrastructure, energy policies, gun control and unemployment.

There's only one way to avoid the unnecessary 11th-hour  decisions our Congress is undertaking.  We need a grand bargain to reform the entitlements' minus Social Security because the latter does not increase the deficit, and it's in pretty good shape for right now.  That could be a standalone bipartisan commission fix.  We mustn't forget defense department waste, and we shouldn't get fixated on today's numbers because that will change once our economy starts to pick up.  We also have to factor in us leaving Afghanistan.  We can also cut out several loopholes but keep our progressive tax system.

Lady,you made my day

My wife must've thought I was going over the edge this morning because I couldn't stop laughing. I was laughing at a letter titled “Democrats are contradicting themselves." I'm sure there are times when Democrats contradict themselves because they are human,like everyone else, but this is certainly not one of those times. I don't think you can be called a hypocrite for distinguishing the differences between voting, which is a right, and showing  a picture ID to gain entrance to an event, which is a choice. There is no statistical data that shows rampant voter fraud. If legislators want to enact" ounce of prevention" laws, they should be aware that the right to vote should never be infringed.

The letter writer (on good source I'm sure) thought it was ironic that some ticket holders were denied entrance to the Democratic National Convention because they didn't have a picture ID. Being a good conservative letter writer, she made several assumptions to back up her outrageous claim of hypocrisy. First, the people asking for ID were probably hired by the convention hall to provide security, not deny someone the right of voting. If anyone has seen a picture of a political delegate, they know they have about 20 pieces of ID around their neck to get into the different events, meetings and who knows what. I wouldn't be surprised if the tickets were color coated because the delegates had assigned seating. The president, vice president and other important dignitaries were going to be inside the convention center; enhance security measures are to be expected and demanded.

It's not only the Democrats who think that the overnight voter ID laws were politically motivated because it made it harder for the poor, elderly, students and minorities to vote. Federal judges are looking at these newly enacted voter suppression laws enacted by Republican governors.

Excessive security measures are not necessarily considered racial issues because you will find that most Libertarians (white or black) think they are in an intrusion of our civil liberties.

The letter writer chose to use the" victim card" because decent superior, conservative, Christian patriots like her are now in a minority. You certainly can't call her a racist because she's bulletproof; you see she's a proud American Latina...:-)

The letter writer didn't have to do any research because all she had to do watch the DNC convention on MSNBC.  She would have learned that the president insisted that the platform keep in the reference to God, no matter how all the delegates voted.  She would have seen that the voice of disapproval  outshouted the” yeas” but she would have seen the blown- up picture of the platform with "God" inserted, as Mayor Villaraigosa asked for a recount.  The Democrats were well aware of the optics and how their opponents would try to use that against them.  It didn’t work for the GOP and they should move on.  I don’t think God cared one way or the other.

Elsewhere, the Sunday talk shows were about foreign policy and what should and shouldn't be done. It's a shame that the administration sent out Dr. Susan Rice to say that the turbulence was caused by a 14-minute video clip. Although all the details are not in, it's not hard to assume that the attacks were coordinated for maximum coverage. The protesters were angry about a prominent Al Qaeda member being killed by a drone, natural unrest, some anti Americanism because of our alliance with Israel and it all was done to coincide with the anniversary of 911. There are legitimate questions to be answered about security, and some will talk of curtailing foreign aid. In the past, we would have not  seen these protest and because like them are not; ruthless dictators would have nipped it in the bud before it got started. The new leaders are going through growing pains as well as the people. We mustn't forget that on the other side of the street, our Libyan friends were holding up signs apologizing for the murder of the ambassador and three other Americans.

I've heard the expression that conservatives aren't really Republicans, but I thought that it was just a “Don’t blame me for Bush" line. Conservative Amy Holmes, told Howard Kurtz of CNN's "Reliable Sources" that the GOP was a tool or a launching pad, but her ideals and ideology come from a conservative mindset, even if it's in a third party. I'm beginning to understand now. You see, you never get too old to learn.

I've heard so many outcries of how Romney should be 6 to 7 points ahead because of our poor economy and that was coming from prominent Republicans.  If that's so, it reminds me of the Dallas Cowboys vs. the Seattle Seahawks  game yesterday.  Paul Ryan took the kickoff and fumbled giving the Democrats 3 points.  Then Mitt Romney punts and gets it blocked giving Obama a touchdown.  Sure, they can make a comeback but they need to run the table and get some help from the Obama campaign.  The Mitt Romney campaign has a lot of money left and I have no doubt that they will carpet bomb the battle ground states in late October through November but now the onus is on Mitt Romney to look like the overwhelming better choice after debates with President Obama.

 

Local v National Conservatism

I'm always amazed how conservatives fight the local top down strategies but advocate for them at the national level. I believe progressives consistently want make sure that the environmental standards are up to par but don't really mind if tax incentives are used to lure businesses to our community. On the national front, progressives don't mind the tax breaks for corporations as long as it doesn't take away from the safety net .The moderates will take a little bit of both and will generally come down on both sides, as long it's feasible. Yes,I know liberals and progressives are also all over the map but they have never claimed to have one standard.

I'm glad our newspaper explained tax abatements even they only presented the favorable side. That's really the only way you can explain tax abatements because you can't really explain the negatives without knowing all the details. I realize we have built in incentives for companies to come to our community, such as the barge canal, new schools, close proximity to Corpus Christi, Houston and San Antonio, good hospitals, and a good four year university. Tax abatements at the local level are much like the federal deduction for start up costs. It's basically, "we will make the company's transition cheaper today for tomorrow's tax dollars." Is it a necessary component in order to lure a large industry? I think it's the cost of doing business that has been accepted for a long time. Companies use it for leverage between competing municipals and competitors realize its part of the bidding process. From what I've read and understand from the local conservatives, they think it's an unnecessary cost because they want a distinctive wall of separation between the private and public entities. They don't think that our city or county should be picking winners and losers because that's the root of crony capitalism. That's a good argument but it comes down to a level of trust. For more on abatements, be sure to check out today's editorial here.

Not to dwell on city politics because I don't know the players per say but it was interesting to see where a conservative councilman said that legal funding should not be about politics. He went on to say "But if this project isn't properly funded, the public can expect one of two things to occur. Either the defense of the permit will fail because it wasn't given the funds to succeed, or they will get part way through the fight and have to return to Council for additional funding." That's what confuses me, at the national level the Republicans are doing exactly what the councilman who call himself a conservative, is complaining about. At the federal level, conservatives don't want to pass President Obama's job proposals but they blame him for high unemployment. Can you see where I’m coming from?

http://tinyurl.com/84zslal

These are just two issues but I'm sure there are more, where the consistency is not there. Usually fiscal conservatives usually want a total free market but they know that's virtually impossible, so they resist joint ventures or anything else that will make government look competent. We can't have a total free market as long as we have the Federal Reserve which is capable of manipulating our economy by increasing our knowing interest. Lately, I've seen the Republican Party going back to its libertarian roots by insisting on austerity methods only. There's an argument that some will say is not true because Romney was chosen to lead the party. Is Romney really leading or will he be the puppet of Grover Norquist and Paul Ryan?

I’m not saying that the local conservatives are right or wrong; I just want to know if I’m judging them correctly.I kind of like the local use of the word "conservative" because it appears to be policy over ideology.

Now is our chance

As new candidates begin to pop up for our districts, I'm very thankful that I just might be voting for someone who's closer to my position than the same old" fiscal conservative" nonsense, I've been hearing for many years. We have finally have some grass root Democrats running, but they need some vetting, so if they say they are fiscal conservatives, you know they're just Republicans in sheep's clothing.

There is a time for fiscal conservatism, but it's not an economic principle conducive to growing our city and state or nation. The time for fiscal conservatism is during boom times, making sure we put some aside for the rainy days, that is sure to come. Fiscal conservatives will cut property taxes in a New York minute because their anti-government and survival of the fittest mindset is just a justification for selflessness. They have the luxury of being against government because the Federal highway system is in place, their kids are in private school, and the public libraries and other services have been paid for. No, we need government but the argument should always be how big and how much, and we shouldn't settle for one just answer, as being a truth certain.

You need to watch out for the anti-government fiscal conservatives because they will only present one side of the ledger. You need to ask those candidates what we got in return for those taxes because fiscal conservatives are just worried about their home-improvement project and not about a "bike and walk trail" that will benefit local citizens. It's always about their checkbook because they think they are the only ones paying taxes. I may not be interested in the arts, but I certainly don't mind if our city allocates a small portion of taxpayer money for those projects because we're all taxpayers. Like any other profit and loss statement, a loss this year doesn't necessarily mean higher taxes in the next year because projects will be paid off, new revenues might be coming and whatnot. As I've said before, fiscal conservatives cannot see beyond a spreadsheet in front of them.

I saw where Jared stated that every dollar that goes to the government does not go to the market. That's a simplistic statement to create a “us vs. them" environment. For the past 30 years, a lot of those dollars went to the top 1%, offshore accounts and surely did not create a trickle-down effect. You cannot find an equilibrium if the ideas come from a single source. You do know that every dollar that goes into a savings account does not go into consumption, keeping inventories on the self and prevents companies from hiring.

It the same way with government jobs, and the solution is not privatizing everything because that's the key ingredient for crony capitalism or worse plutocracy. In the last three years the biggest job cuts have come in the public sector, so now those people are not consuming and are on the public dole. About the only thing conservatives and liberals agree on, is infrastructure repair. The ideologues within the Republican Party of today won’t even allow that. The very idea that every person that goes into government, takes that person out of the free market is ludicrous. Some companies are choosing not to hire but instead making employees do more for less and a lot of government employees get their expertise from the government and then acquire lucrative contracts in the private sector.
The government can create the environment for jobs such as funding NASA and reaping the rewards of discovery, infrastructure projects, grants to entrepreneurs, trade talks, and monitoring unsafe practices and legislating tax reform. The United States of America will never adopt a laissez-faire economy, and so as Bill Clinton famously said, “We can only fix what is bad with America with what is good with America."

In closing remember liberals, Democrats, left-of-center of center voters, and moderates, we have our chance for an alternative, but as they say in politics "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Focus, look what the GOP fiscal conservative governors did in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio; they went after the unions, they cut taxes and public services but gave lucrative tax breaks to corporations. Be fair, check those states out and see how they compare to the rest of the nation. They won't stop there; check those states that overreached on the social issues. A voice is a wonderful thing to have but many times it starts with baby steps like local elections. I'm guilty of being apathetic, but if we get some different candidates, I'll definitely get off my butt. I have no intentions for voting anyone in my precinct’s City Council race because it’s between two "flip of the coin" fiscal conservatives.