My experience with the actual positions that seem to be taken by people who call themselves by these labels, (Green or Libertarian), has led me to the following generalizations, (which are never fair of course).
The ideas that are put down on paper by Libertarians attract me at first glance. We all get frustrated by "big anything" sometimes, including government, and I am no exception. But when put into practice, (for example when you hear a Libertarian in a debate focused on how they would solve problems), I come away with the idea that they are really rooted in the worst kind of selfishness. If is all about me, then I want all the ability to make all the decisions for myself, and I want nobody else involved. I want small government, no taxes, I make all my own decisions. There is a great deal of this Libertarian philosophy (I think) that drove the shift in the Republican party 25 years ago away from being for fiscal conservatism and toward a single-minded focus on tax reduction, and a push to starve government programs of cash, assuming they would go away.
The bottom line is that at some point I have to think of myself within the culture that I live in. How does my culture meet the needs of all the members? It is great to theoretically think in terms of charity and people voluntarily stepping up to the plate to solve problems within the culture, but the fact is that this simply does not happen in our culture. At one end of the spectrum you have the notion of a social democracy - we empower and expect solutions from government. Most of the western world leans far more toward this model than we do. Over the past 25 years, we have been moving steadily away from this model, under the banner that people are better at managing "their money" (the Christian in me has a problem with this term) than the government is. As a result, effective tax rates - especially on higher income brackets - have plummeted over the last 25 years. In theory, we should have seen a corresponding rise in both the personal savings rate, (as people take better care of "their money", as well as an increase in the rates of "giving" to charitable and philanthropic causes. In fact, personal rates of charitable giving have not dramatically changed during that period, and the personal savings rate has continued to drop - I think that it actually stands at a negative number right now. (In 1987, when the tax rates were dramatically dropped such that the top rate dropped from 50% to 28% - meaning that high earners had an extra 32% of their income that they kept - the rate of charitable giving rose only about 7%.)
At the end of the day, I guess I do believe that as a culture we should be providing for each other. While much of that work can be done by private organizations, the fact is that Americans don't tend to fund such a model voluntarily. The other drawback to that model is the lack of democratic process - those with money will begin to fund the organizations that favor them, rather than maintaining an egalitarian perspective. So, after wondering for many years if the Libertarian philosophy was one that I could sign on to, I came to the conclusion that they had some interesting ideas, but that their foundational premise was too self-centered for me. They don't really want to solve problems, they just want more control over what they consider to be theirs.
As to the Greens, I have similarly found myself supporting their positions on many things over the years. I know that this is a broad and unfair generalization, but they do too often seem to me to be very "elitist" and "politically correct" - too much so for me in some cases. For example, looking at the 10 Basic Values, they list "Feminism" as one of these. While this is a very politically correct term to use, what does it mean? I don't think that you would find a common definition of what that word means across the board. Mind you, if you know me you know that I am a huge believer in social justice for all, I believe that no one should be discriminated against based on what they are or aren't, and you probably know that if push came to shove, I would probably rank women in general as smarter, wiser, and more capable in most professional respects than men, and believe it to be obvious that western culture has scorned and denigrated femininity for over 1500 years. I don't call myself a feminist though, because I don't know what the word means. I have known militant "female supremacists" who assign that label to themselves, and everything else on the spectrum. So for an organization to use such a vague word as a "Basic Value" bothers me. It shows a lack of thought, and a tendency to do something because it is politically correct - the wrong reason.
With that criticism, I will say again that I find myself agreeing with Greens on many (but certainly not all) issues. Looking at their "Basic Values", how can anyone argue with Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Responsibility, and Non-violence? (I think that the other labels fall neatly into these).
At their web site, the Greens offer a very nice discussion guide in the form of a comparison of their position with the position of the Democrats and the Republicans - you can find it here. I think the document is not entirely fair with the other parties, but makes a great discussion document. I think that we could print this document, and bring it with us as a discussion guide, and start wrestling through the issues one at a time, and see where we end up. Would be a fun thing to do - I might surprise myself at where I ended up. Would be nice if the Libertarians were a little less theoretical, and we could add a column for them on here too. How about another column for a new party that we form right there at the table? That would be fun! We could call ourselves the Christian Heretics. :o)
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Greens and Libertarians
Friday, October 28, 2005
A Human The Size of a Grain of Sand
I read somewhere that if you got rid of all that “space” of electromagnetic energy that is holding it all together, and just piled the little bits of matter together, that the human body would be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Is God Mad at George Bush?
Not that I am a big one on believing in the notion that God picks people out for punishment, but doesn't it seem funny to anyone else that all of these disasters are stricking dubya and his friends?
First the mess in Iraq. I mean, if dubya thought that he was led somehow by God to invade this country, (as some have suggested), then wouldn't you think that things would be going better for us? How is it that things keep getting worse and worse there?
And the economy - why does it continue to be a mess?
And why does the proportion of the world that views us with contempt continue to grow?
And all of these traitors and liars that surround the man - why is this happening?
And then Katrina, messing up his adopted state and everything close to it.
And now Wilma, seeming to target both dubya and his brother.
I don't mean to make light of the human tragedy involved here, but it strikes me that the Christian fundamentalists might want to rethink this whole thing. If they believe that God would target a single person and bring them either special good things or special bad things, then it would seem that the Bush family is one that you might want to distance yourself from - the appearance is that they have done things to bring about the wrath of the Almighty.
Just a thought...
Monday, October 24, 2005
Poverty and Deuteronomy
Discussion recently got me to wondering...
The discussion revolved around Jesus rebuking the disciples for their rebuke of the kind act of a woman, where the disciples were clearly focused on the waste of the oil used for anointing, and Jesus is said to have made a comment something like, “The poor will be with you always.”
This may very well be a reference back to the 15th chapter of Deuteronomy. The actual verse comes from the 11th chapter, which reads something like, “There will always be poor people among you”, but the context of the preceding instruction in the chapter, as well as the following words, is extremely critical it seems to me. For that reason, here is the text (NIV).
1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your G-d is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your G-d and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your G-d will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your G-d is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your G-d will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
If the quote that is attributed to Jesus was truly referencing this passage, then the light that is cast on the issue is brand new. As usual, lack of context is blinding.
The instruction is imbedded within dialogue meant to eliminate poverty – exactly the problem that we said could probably never be cured. Yet, here in the Torah, we are given the formula for eliminating poverty. Within that formula, the assumption appears to be that even as we follow the instruction of G-d, and do out best to eliminate poverty, there will be a constant flow of people into our system who will be poor, and we are commanded to be “openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land”.
To follow this through for a minute, did the authors of Deuteronomy truly believe that it was possible to eliminate poverty? If this was possible, then why would there remain a constant flow of poor? Is it possible that we could read into this the notion that as we follow this command, and share wealth among all the people, then a “rising tide” will indeed continually re-define poverty, constantly raising the bar so that the affluence of humanity will require a constantly revised definition of poverty, (thus a constant flow of the poor)? This is, indeed, what has happened in our world, as most in our country who are considered “poor” might be considered pretty wealthy in many parts of the world.
If this reading of the command was accurate, then our instruction is very clear. As we continue to distribute wealth to the poor, and the tide of affluence rises among all the people, we must continue to raise the bar, not lower it. Progress toward the Kingdom of G-d lies clearly on this path, and breaking this command moves us away.
A discussion of politics within our nation might go well here…
Did Jesus see things like this? If so, then His rebuke makes all the sense in the world. The struggle to eliminate poverty is not a struggle at all, but a blessing – a mitzvoth that we are given. It is one that we can (and should) practice all the days of our lives. He was at that table at that moment, and kindness shown to Him should in no way be taken as a slight to those who were more poor than him. The woman in the story was, indeed, sharing wealth with a poor man at the table, just as everyone at that table should continue to do as a way of moving toward G-d.
Are the poor within our culture a blight to be struggled against. or a blessing for those who are less-poor? Perhaps the Beatitudes take on a new meaning?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Moral Bankruptcy
Friday, October 14, 2005
Administration Fears of the Special Prosecuter
What will the indictment be?
A special prosecuter is closing in on members of an administration.
Last time this happened - to the Clinton administration, it was a special prosecuter who was hired to look at business dealings of the President before he was even elected to office. There were probably 7 people in the entire country who even understood what Whitewater was. I wasn't one of them. The basis for the special prosecuter seemed tenuous at best, and when he couldn't find anything naughty in the Whitewater investigation, he turned his focus onto the personal sexual life of the President, and struck pay dirt there! (Mr. Clinton made that job easy with his quick release zipper.)
Then, Republicans saw no problem with either the questionable nature of the investigation in the first place, or the fact that the investigation became a snoop dog / watch dog for anything that the President might have done wrong. When these issues were brought up at the height of the Clinton scandal, Republicans generally were indignant - wrong is wrong - it doesn't matter how we came to the indictment.
The worst part of the Whitewater investigation was that it still is. That is, as I understand it, we are still spending money for that investigation to continue. Hello - when does this end?
The tables are turned a bit now, and it is pure entertainment all over again. This time, the nature of the investigation makes sense. That is, someone in the administration has committed a shameful act at the very least in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent - and purely for political motivation it would appear. In my opinion, I can't imagine how such behavior doesn't rise to the level of at least "high crimes and misdemeanors", or more likely grand treason!
But the Republican press is busy smearing the special prosecuter already, preparing for the possibility that people like Karl Rove or Scooter Libby (or others?) might actually be indicted for something like conspiracy rather than treason. If there isn't enough evidence for treason, then it doesn't seem fair to them that some other charge might be considered I guess.
What if the special prosecuter were to start to dig into the pre-election business dealings of either Mr. Bush or Mr Cheney - I wonder what they might find...
So here we go again folks, but this time, the massive Republican media machine might be able to stop the special prosecuter machine before it reaches critical mass.
The Relevance of the Special Prosecuter
And what about the special prosecuter anyway? Can't this get out of control?
I think it can. I think that limits should be placed on these people to prevent them from digging into issues that are either irrelevant, (as Monica Lewinski was), or trivial.
However, I also think that in this era when way too much power seems to be getting concentrated into the office of the presidency - especially when that office also controls Congress and the Supreme Court as they do today - a special prosecuter might just be the only check and balance that we have on an office with way more power than was ever intended by our founding fathers.
Fair Game
At the end of the day, what should be fair game for Fitz to go after?
I think that we have a clear precedent in this matter - the Whitewater investigation. In the end, we indicted the President, (but failed to convict him), on charges that he lied about who he slept with. With that precedent, I think that we can fairly say that that anything is fair game - the prosecuter should be able to put the President of the United States on the stand, and ask him about his personal sex life, and if he lies, then he is open to impeachment. (sic)
That was absurd when it happened to Clinton, and would be absurd today. I hope that my friends who support these people who are in power today and who call themselves Republican see now just how silly the Clinton/Lewinski ordeal really was. I also hope that my friend who are Democrats see how silly it would be to repeat our past folly.
But, anything that involves the security of this country, or the business dealings of the office of the Presidency, should be fair game.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Stealing Money
- Do not spend money that you don’t have.
- Be honest and honorable in how you make your money.
- Do not cause harm to others in order to make your money.
Katrina - Clearing shelters by spending millions on hotels
So, regardless if it makes sense or not, in order to meet this deadline, we are moving people out of shelters, and into hotels?
The NYT reports that we are spending $11million a day on these hotels, with the outlay for hotels expected to grow to $425 million by 10/24.
They still can't tell you where this money is going to come from, and this is just a tiny piece of the billions that we will spend providing aid to the region. Just like they can't tell you where the hundreds of billions that they are spending in Iraq is going to come from.
Is anyone in this administration even coherent?
Conservatives, wake up! As always, rather than looking at the supply side of the tax equation - which is the taxes that we take in - we should be looking at the spending side of the equation, and how we are spending and wasting money.
These neocons are ruining the country, and well meaning conservatives are doing nothing to stop them!