Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktOn today’s earlier thread, ashot posed what seemed to me to be an intriguing question. In the face of lms’ hopefully only temporary departure, he asked:
So this is going to become a boys club and a largely conservative one at that?
The perception that ATiM is or would become a largely conservative place struck me as very odd. I don’t feel that way at all, so I was compelled to do a bit of accounting.
By my count, we have 17 people who comment on a fairly regular basis. Having been reading them all for at least a year now and in many instance a lot longer, I think they can be sensibly distributed across 6 general political classifications: conservative, moderately conservative, moderate, moderately liberal, liberal, and libertarian. Right now, I’d say that we have 4 conservatives, 1 moderate conservative, 2 moderates, 1 moderate liberals, 7 progressives, and 2 libertarians. This is my distribution.
Cons – quarterback, McWing, Brent, myself
Mod Cons – Kevin
Mods – Mark, Bannedagain
Mod Lib – ashot,
Lib – lmsinca, Michigoose, okiegirl, bsimon, Fairlingtonblade, yelljkt, msjs0315
Libertarian – novahockey, jnc4p
There is, of course, room for dispute. I’m not entirely sure about a couple of these classifications, for example msjs. Would she call herself a moderate liberal or liberal? And maybe a couple more of those classified as liberals would object and declare themselves moderate liberals. But that is more a question of degree, not kind. Banned, since he generally only comments on the markets, is tough to judge too. But I think this generally gives a good sense of where we all fall politically.
So if my accounting is accurate, we’ve currently got 5 conservatives, 8 liberals, 2 moderates, and 2 libertarians, which seems fairly balanced with a slight lean to the left. Even if we throw the libertarians in with the conservatives (which, I suspect, both the cons and the liberts would object to in principle), we get rid of the slight lean, but maintain the overall balance. If we start to include the less frequent posters (ruk, mcurtis, abc, mike), then we most definitely start to lean left.
So I think ATiM has achieved a pretty good balance across the political spectrum, and in any event is certainly not “largely conservative”. Am I wrong? Have I offended anyone by classifying them as a liberal?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Scott,
I’m fine with the label though I’m not particularly socially conservative, I’m pro-choice (anti RoevWade, should be a states right issue) and ambivilant about Gay Marriage (why should the State (local or Fed) care about or even know my relationship or sexual status?) and not particularly religious (but spiritual!) I generally argue on the side of the social conservatives but from a more libertarian POV.
I realize you didn’t ask about my political quirks and may not care. Just wanted to add some illumination.
LikeLike
McWing:
Fair enough. I’m not sure conservative is entirely accurate for me either. But for the purposes here, I think it works.
LikeLike
“I came here for the moderates.”
“What moderates?”
“I was misinformed.”
(h/t to Rick)
LikeLike
Troglodyte wing of the right-wing extremists here.
LikeLike
Lib – lmsinca, Michigoose, okiegirl, bsimon, Fairlingtonblade, yelljkt, msjs0315
First off, ‘Lib’ is a demeaning term used only by Hannityites. Second, I self-identify as a moderate even if I am in favor of single-payer health care, doubling the salaries of public school teachers, and jailing anyone who was in the financial industry during 2007.
Right now, I’d say that we have 4 conservatives, 1 moderate conservative, 2 moderates, 1 moderate liberals, 7 progressives, and 2 libertarians. This is my distribution.
Has that distribution been comment frequency weighted?
LikeLike
yello:
First off, ‘Lib’ is a demeaning term used only by Hannityites.
Oh for chrissakes. I guess you didn’t notice I used the abbreviation “con” too. And “mod”. Is there no end to the need to search for offense?
Second, I self-identify as a moderate
Of course you do.
Has that distribution been comment frequency weighted?
No. I looked for a way to measure that, but it doesn’t seem to be one of the stats beyond the last day.
LikeLike
I don’t self categorize as particularly liberal. I suspect conservatives think I’m liberal because I find the current trends in conservativism to be utterly nonsensical and say so.
On hotbutton issues, I’m pro same-sex marriage, but more for libertarian reasons than liberal ones. I suspect the scientists are correct on global warming, because that’s what the evidence overwhelmingly supports. The conservatives’ overwhelming refusal to discuss the issue reasonably confounds me.
LikeLike
bsimon:
I suspect conservatives think I’m liberal because I find the current trends in conservativism to be utterly nonsensical and say so.
I categorized you as liberal because you seem to pretty consistently express liberal opinions.
LikeLike
Oh for chrissakes. I guess you didn’t notice I used the abbreviation “con” too.
The more politically correct terms would be ‘moonbat’ and ‘wingnut’ respectively.
LikeLike
“I categorized you as liberal because you seem to pretty consistently express liberal opinions.”
That is your perception. Conservatives are taking more extreme positions, in my view, so I challenge them more than the liberals. On healthcare, I don’t particularly care for the ACA, particularly the mandate; but I do understand why its necessary. I don’t see the conservatives offering a viable alternative. So I defend the ACA in the absence of a better alternative – which you presumably view as a ‘liberal’ position.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Conservatives are taking more extreme positions
More extreme than what?
LikeLike
” I don’t see the conservatives offering a viable alternative. “
That’s an interesting statement. Why isn’t repealing ACA a viable alternative? What do you think ACA will do that would have to be addressed by an alternative?
LikeLike
FWIW, I don’t know if I should be included as a conservative or libertarian. I care deeply about free markets and I really don’t care about social issues.
LikeLike
Brent:
I don’t know if I should be included as a conservative or libertarian.
Like banned, I wasn’t really sure how I should categorize you, either, although I knew you weren’t a liberal.
LikeLike
“Why isn’t repealing ACA a viable alternative? ”
Because the pre-ACA status quo is unsustainable; mostly because so many people don’t have access to healthcare other than through the emergency room, which is the most expensive form of care & the rest of us subsidize. If I have to subsidize others’ care, I’d rather it be of a lower cost variety & avoid those expensive emergency room visits.
Ideally, healthcare decisions are in the hands of the individual & insurance is not tied to employment. The pools required by the ACA are a step in the right direction, by creating large pools that are affordable to the individual consumer. Rather than repealing ACA, why not kill 1) the mandate that employers provide coverage; and 2) the favorable tax status of employer derived coverage? Push the purchasing decision into the hands of the consumer, where it should be & relieve businesses of the burden of providing health insurance for their employees? But did the conservatives try to modify the program in a conservative-friendly way? No. We heard nonsense about death panels and marxism. They never quite explained how expanding the guaranteed customer base of the insurance industry by 90 million people amounts to marxism.
LikeLike
“More extreme than what?”
More extreme than they used to be. Somewhat amusingly, all the GOP candidates for POTUS this year all try to characterize themselves as Saint Ronald the 2nd; but Reagan himself was much more moderate than any of the candidates running to play him in the sequel.
LikeLike
bsimon:
More extreme than they used to be.
Which ones?
LikeLike
What do you think ACA will do that would have to be addressed by an alternative?
Troll,
This goes back to the whole purpose of health care reform which is to get as many people covered by insurance as possible. The ultimate goal is universal health care. That this was a goal was implicit in the 2008 election with McCain offering one policy and Obama another.
There are a lot of ways of achieving universal coverage including but not limited to single payer, individual mandates, and nationalized health care. Something I note frequently is that Obama won the Democratic nomination at least in part because his health care policy was more moderate than Hillary Clinton’s.
ACA implements what used to be a far-right proposal, employer mandates. One of its major drawbacks is that the degree of universal coverage is much less than other plans.
By letting Democrats snipe the major conservative plan (Romneycare, remember?), Republicans are now bereft of an alternative concept and have been flailing with vague ‘repeal and replace’ rhetoric. They have no competing plan which would provide equivalent or better coverage than the ACA.
Why is universal coverage so important? Liberals see it as a primary human right. Pragmatic conservatives identify it as worthwhile goal as a way to control costs on a out-of-control sector of the economy that is affecting US competitiveness. If you start arguing that universal health coverage is not a desirable policy goal (as I suspect many conservatives, and especially libertarians, really believe), that elevates the discussion to a much higher philosophical level.
Defending the ACA in and of itself shouldn’t be a left/right litmus test since there are so many other options to the left of it with no real proposal other than just abandoning it on the right. This is yet another sign of how far right the Overton Window has shifted in the past four years.
LikeLike
bsimon,
Excellent points. I have long wanted to make insurance private and portable. In this case, contribution to employee health programs would be a mandatory benefit equivalent to the average cost of defined health care policy. Then we could start arguing over whether that base package had to include contraception coverage or not.
LikeLike
“Which ones?”
I’m talking about conservatives/Repubs overall. Orrin Hatch used to be one of the most conservative Senators; now he’s in the middle of his party. Lindsey Graham is in danger of being RINOd in a primary. Perhaps that is the strongest indicator of the creeping conservatism I’ve mentioned before. There is no longer tolerance for being 80% or 90% onboard with the party platform; its 100% or nothing for Repub candidates. No room for moderates. No room for nuance. Fall into line or get out.
LikeLike
bsimon:
I’m talking about conservatives/Repubs overall.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant which positions are extreme now relative to what they used to be?
LikeLike
“I meant which positions are extreme now relative to what they used to be?”
No new taxes, ever. Dismantle Medicare. Dismantle social security. Eliminate regulation of wall street. Eliminate entire departments within the executive branch (what was Perry’s list; DOEd, DOComm & DOEnergy?).
LikeLike
Moonbat weighing in here: Scott, what bsimom and yello are telling you is what I was alluding to a few days ago when I said Congress had shifted to the right. It has.
LikeLike
Here’s one; is this now conservative doctrine; or is there someone on the right who will challenge the notion that our universities are ‘indoctrination mills’?
LikeLike
“This goes back to the whole purpose of health care reform which is to get as many people covered by insurance as possible. The ultimate goal is universal health care. That this was a goal was implicit in the 2008 election with McCain offering one policy and Obama another.”
I get that it was the stated reason, though I think the ultimate desire is more central control over individual American’s lives. I found McCain’s plans worthless, for what it’s worth. I’m also not so sure the universal healthcare was the animating factor after the financial crash. It is my belief that fear, and McCains Poor handling of the crisis led to Obama’s victory. I won’t quibble though, if Obama won he was going to go for healthcare regardless of why he was elected.
“There are a lot of ways of achieving universal coverage including but not limited to single payer, individual mandates, and nationalized health care.”
It’s completely anecdotal but I just don’t know many Republicans that think that healthcare is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the government. Regardless, It’s my position that all of the above is not a Federal role. In fact, I feel so strongly about it (and work towards electing people that agree with me) that if I was in a position to “moderate or improve” a policy that in anyway reinforces the idea that healthcare is a right that should be guaranteed by the government, I would not. I would attempt to be as disruptive and unhelpful as possible.
“ACA implements what used to be a far-right proposal, employer mandates. “
Your right that the Heritage Foundation was floating this nonsensical idea in the early 90’s in response to Hillarycare. As far as I know, it did not enjoy widespread acceptance among my rightwing brethren. What I recall was disgust at Heritage and at other Republicans desire to capitulate on the idea that healthcare is a right that should be guaranteed by the government. It was not Heritage’s finest moment.
“By letting Democrats snipe the major conservative plan (Romneycare, remember?),”.
I’m going to take issue with your description of Romneycare as a “conservative plan.” If the conservative position is that healthcare is not a right, using the state government and or Federal government to coerce the citizens it purports to serve to facilitate universal coverage of a commodity is not a conservative position. One of the criticisms of conservatives against Romney is that he is not a conservative. Do you think he is a conservative? If so, what does that make someone like, say, Jim Demint?
“Republicans are now bereft of an alternative concept and have been flailing with vague ‘repeal and replace’ rhetoric. They have no competing plan which would provide equivalent or better coverage than the ACA.”
I see this not as flailing but an abandonment of a position that was wrong. Hopefully there will be no attempt at replace.
“Why is universal coverage so important? Liberals see it as a primary human right. Pragmatic conservatives identify it as worthwhile goal as a way to control costs on a out-of-control sector of the economy that is affecting US competitiveness.”
I agree that that liberals see it as a primary human right. I’d disagree with the “pragmatic conservative” label. I’d consider them moderate Republicans. From a cost control standpoint, there is widespread belief that government can effectively control costs, it’s not a belief I subscribe to.
“If you start arguing that universal health coverage is not a desirable policy goal (as I suspect many conservatives, and especially libertarians, really believe), that elevates the discussion to a much higher philosophical level.”
I agree, as I’ve previously noted and is what prompted my initial question to you.
“Defending the ACA in and of itself shouldn’t be a left/right litmus test since there are so many other options to the left of it with no real proposal other than just abandoning it on the right. This is yet another sign of how far right the Overton Window has shifted in the past four years.”
Are you saying the Overton window has shifted right because conservatives do not believe that healthcare is a right? I tend to believe that any rightward shift in regards to the Overton Window is a result of the realization of what a right to healthcare entails and a rejection of it.
LikeLike
That was excellent, George.
I do not believe health care is a right, either. At that philosophical level, I recognize that germs know no boundaries and that infectious disease control requires regional and sometimes national vigilance. I do believe the USPHS and its state affiliates, and the CDC, are like defense, cops, and firefighters: not a matter of right but a recognition of government’s primary public safety obligation. My concerns come from that beginning. For me, it is easy to justify public health nurses in the public schools, as we had in my rural school when I was a kid. It is easy to justify immunization programs. It is incrementally easy to justify more programs, if you get my drift, perhaps even including ER treatment for the indigent, rather than having them infecting all of us, or bleeding out in the street.
It is easy for me to justify a VA system as part of the obligation we owe to our warfighters.
There are problems and bright spots that I recognize.
I am a believer in the competitive mechanism. I think the AMA has distorted that mechanism by restricting supply; for instance, by limiting the efficacy of nurses.
I think employer based insurance has now put us in a less competitive position than our peer group of manufacturing nations.
I think our system is inefficient compared with others, for reasons that elude me, because we have examples of efficiency within the sea of inefficiency. All of us would find clinic care cheaper and better than any alternative – Mayo, Cleveland, Scott & White – good health care is delivered in these places at pricing levels 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper than the average. The CVS and similar quickie care actually are cheap and handle everyday complaints effectively.
I think the insurance industry itself was in the best position in the marketplace to seek supply-delivery reforms, and I think in some cases it has done so. I think the drug store chains are in a position to help, and have done so to some extent. I think it takes state government action at the very least to press the AMA to recognize that much front line care can be delivered by RNs and EMTs. I do not understand the spotty record of the insurance industry in demanding reforms to the procedure-pay system or the record keeping systems. It had the most to gain or lose in dollars and cents, from inefficiencies.
I would be in favor of state or federal education subsidies to train more health care first providers who could work off the subsidies in public health roles [TBD] for the first few years after certification. NoVAH and I discussed this particular idea as cheaper and more effective than ACA in the long run, b/c supply of MDs, RNs, pharmDs, DOs, DDSs, ODs, etc., would be greatly increased over time, rather than gradually decreased, as is the current projection. That projection of decreased number of providers – the basic supply problem – will overwhelm all other attempts to control costs. That truly is Eco 101.
There are a lot of moving parts here. I am wondering how much of what I wrote above you would agree with, how much you would disagree with, and where we could find common ground.
LikeLike
If I recall, Reagan ran on eliminating whole government departments. Specifically the department of Education (and Commerce I think.). It’s widely felt that one of the reasons that Bush I lost in ’92 was because he went back on his pledge of “no new taxes.” I also think that Goldwater, while not actively campaigning onit, was understood to be an opponent of Social Security and a believer that itt should be dismantled.
Where has the party shifted farther right recently?
LikeLike
I found McCain’s plans worthless, for what it’s worth.
Deliberately so. It was a complete red herring never meant to be a serious policy initiative. So the lack of a conservative rebuttal to ACA predated Obama’s election.
I just don’t know many Republicans that think that healthcare is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the government.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
It’s my position that all of the above is not a Federal role.
If there is not some sort of Federal role, it becomes a race to the bottom.
From a cost control standpoint, there is widespread belief that government can effectively control costs, it’s not a belief I subscribe to.
Universal coverage is what controls costs, not federal micro-managing.
It was not Heritage’s finest moment.
It was another red herring until someone actually took it seriously and implemented it.
…the realization of what a right to healthcare entails and a rejection of it.
It doesn’t have to be a ‘right’ to make it a good policy. We have a lot of free riders in the system creating inefficiencies and burdening both taxpayers and businesses with excessive costs. An individual mandate makes it the responsibility of the individual to not be a burden on society.
LikeLike
“Thank you for confirming my suspicion.”
Was your suspicion that I only know like-minded Republicans? I suppose, as far as the Republicans I know, they are of like mind so I admit to that. I did note that my information on Republican thinking was anecdotal. Or we’re you not previously aware of my lack of a belief in a right to healthcare? If so, I’ve written it here many times and have never made any attempt to hide
LikeLike
“Thank you for confirming my suspicion.”
Was your suspicion that I only know like-minded Republicans? I suppose, as far as the Republicans I know, they are of like mind so I admit to that. I did note that my information on Republican thinking was anecdotal. Or we’re you not previously aware of my lack of a belief in a right to healthcare? If so, I’ve written it here many times and have never made any attempt to hide it.
LikeLike
“Deliberately so. It was a complete red herring never meant to be a serious policy initiative. So the lack of a conservative rebuttal to ACA predated Obama’s election.”
I should hope so. The only conservative message in regards to healthcare is that it is a commodity, not a right.
“Universal coverage is what controls costs, not federal micro-managing.”
I’m just not convinced that an increase in utilization of healthcare services controls costs. It can only be safely said that it increases the utilization of healthcare services.
“It doesn’t have to be a ‘right’ to make it a good policy. We have a lot of free riders in the system creating inefficiencies and burdening both taxpayers and businesses with excessive costs. An individual mandate makes it the responsibility of the individual to not be a burden on society.”
There is another way to handle the free rider problem, don’t provide them care. One cannot be a burden to me if I’m not obligated to pay for them.
LikeLike
Or we’re you not previously aware of my lack of a belief in a right to healthcare?
Not that I wasn’t aware of it, but saying so explicitly moves the discussion. The politicians who advocate “repeal and replace” have no intention to implement the ‘replace’ part. It would be nice if they weren’t being blatantly and disingenuously deceitful about their goals.
I am not accusing you of any hypocrisy because you openly claim health care is a right. (Note my construction above where I say it’s a responsibility.) But no elected official I know of has been so forthright in their beliefs.
LikeLike
Oh,and BTW, Scott: just for the record, you could never offend me by classifying me as a liberal (but I think you knew that).
But “moonbat” just sounds a little cuter. 🙂
LikeLike
“I think the ultimate desire is more central control over individual American’s lives.”
Who’s desire? Health Insurance companies?
“I just don’t know many Republicans that think that healthcare is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the government.”
What if the justification is not that healthcare is a ‘right’, but that healthcare is a drag on the economy? The pre-ACA status quo is a sector that is consuming a greater & greater share of our economic output, but offering consistently mediocre results.
“From a cost control standpoint, there is widespread belief that government can effectively control costs, it’s not a belief I subscribe to.”
Who believes gov’t can control costs? I agree gov’t can influence costs, but not always in the ways intended. Gov’t is merely a tool & not always the right tool.
“Where has the party shifted farther right recently?”
As it happens, today’s NYT has an article on that subject. It covers longtime conservative stalwarts Orrin Hatch & Richard Lugar’s moves to the right to avoid being primaried. Some guy in the House is now campaigning against the phaseout of incandescent lightbulbs that he voted for (and POTUS Bush signed).
LikeLike
bsimon:
Some guy in the House is now campaigning against the phaseout of incandescent lightbulbs that he voted for (and POTUS Bush signed)
Opposition to a law making incandescent light bulbs illegal is indicative of a move to the right? You must be joking. The very existence of this ridiculous law, and that it was signed into law by a Republican, shows just how far to the left our governing philosophy has moved, yet somehow extreme left positions are, to you, normative, and attempts to blunt movement towards that extreme is a sign of rightward movement.
But you’re not a liberal, right?
LikeLike
“An individual mandate makes it the responsibility of the individual to not be a burden on society.”
Why do conservatives reject individual responsibility?
LikeLike
“There is another way to handle the free rider problem, don’t provide them care. One cannot be a burden to me if I’m not obligated to pay for them. ”
Are you suggesting that hospitals should verify all patients’ ability to pay prior to providing care?
LikeLike
What I see in this grup are a lot of attempts to label and place people in areas where they may not belong. What we are reading are black and white words. Emotions and facial expressions are missing. However, loads of guesses are made. I do see a right of center group here. However what was conservative in my day has moved to the right into Santorum nonsense. (apparently Santorum was unable to defend his conservative views at Penn State so he thinks ALL colleges are liberal institutions.)
LikeLike
FYI, just thought I’d jump in here with some observations on yello’s question about commenters weighted by frequency of comment.
My figures are a little off, but within the ballpark, so to speak.
Starting with the 2/22 Morning Report and ending with the first 36 responses to this post, the top five commenters are:
1. ScottC 18%
2. jnc4p 11%
3. yellojkt 10%
4. NoVA 8%
5. Kevin 8%
I’ll let you all interpret that as you will.
LikeLike
msjs:
This week, being fairly atypical, is not a good selection on which to base conclusions. Two of what I think are generally among the most active liberal commenters were not posting for much of the week. Had you chosen the previous week, my percentage would have been close to zero, which of course would also have been atypical.
LikeLike
Mark,
Great questions. I’ll answer them and move them to whatever thread is operation later today or tonight.
LikeLike
What is Jeb Bush?
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/02/23/jeb-bush-2012-gop-field-appealing-peoples-fears
I generally think of him as a moderate conservative.
LikeLike
Ronald Regan campaigned on eliminating Energy and Education. He campaigned against big government that was still smaller than today. He was anti-abortion and slashed taxes. He was thwarted by Democrats in trying to cut spending, but he sure campaigned on it. He was a Cold Warrior who took a harder stance against our enemies. Democrats hysterically denounced him as a war monger who would start a nuclear war when he announced the SDI program.
Conservatives were the same then as now. Bill Buckley was the original RINO hunter. He started the movement to oust Lowell Weicker, and succeeded. National Review was actually more conservative then than it is now. So were other publications like Human Events and American Spectator.
Twenty years ago, anyone in either party would have been referred for psychiatric evaluation for proposing gay marriage, let alone claiming that it is a constitutional right to which only “bigots” are opposed. GHW Bush explicitly ran on “no new taxes.” Breaking the pledge was his undoing. New Gingrich brought the GOP to power in Congress with the arch-conservative Contract with America (which big-government liberal Democrats cynically smeared as the Contract on America). Bill Clinton himself said the era of big government was over, and admitted he had raised taxes too much.
Liberals and the Democratic Party have moved far to the left. So far that advocates of a federalized health care system and same-sex marriage won’t even admit they are liberals. That’s what has happened.
LikeLike
Some of yello’s comments about health care:
Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
Is it really possible for anyone to have been unclear about the fact that Republicans do not consider “health care” or any other goods and services a “right”?
Btw, if it is a “right,” why do we still have to pay for it? Has Obama ever clearly said one way or another whether it is a “right”?
If there is not some sort of Federal role, it becomes a race to the bottom.
Why is this anything other than a liberal talking point? What does it even mean? Is everything not mandated and regulated by the federal government a “race to the bottom”? Can we assume that you reject the fundamental federal principles of our constitutional system?
The politicians who advocate “repeal and replace” have no intention to implement the ‘replace’ part.
Here is a summary of Newt’s plan to repeal and replace: http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare/
What is your evidence that he does not plan to implement it? Or is the only valid replacement in your opinion a different approach to federalizing health care and forcing everyone into the same system regulated by the federal government?
It would be nice if they weren’t being blatantly and disingenuously deceitful about their goals.
What is your evidence of this blatant deceit they are practicing? Is it better or worse than, for example, Obama’s blatant deceitfulness about his position on same-sex marriage? Or his deceitfulness about his own real goals for health care?
LikeLike
This whole thing is my fault. Apparently my super-human ability to repel women, a trait common among libertarians, knows no bounds and has enter cyberspace.
LikeLike
“somehow extreme left positions are, to you, normative, and attempts to blunt movement towards that extreme is a sign of rightward movement.
But you’re not a liberal, right?”
Scott, I don’t recall passing judgement on that particular law. Thank you though, for conceding that the Rep’s change does constitute a move rightward. How that relates to my political views is unclear.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Scott, I don’t recall passing judgement on that particular law.
Well feel free to enlighten us.
Thank you though, for conceding that the Rep’s change does constitute a move rightward.
Clearly his change represents a move rightward from his previous vote. But just as clearly it does not represent a move rightward from historical conservatism, which was what you claimed it was evidence of. Not even liberals were advocating for the elimination of incandescent bulbs 30 years ago, much less were conservatives.
Also, Scott, no comment on Hatch & Lugar lurching to the right?
Not really. Two entrenched Senators getting primaried from their right is hardly evidence that the party as a whole has shifted significantly from its positions 30 years ago. I think qb did a pretty good job debunking this crazy notion that either the R’s or the government has moved to the right over the last few decades.
LikeLike
3. yellojkt 10%
I have been rather chatty lately.
Has Obama ever clearly said one way or another whether it is a “right”?
Let me Google that for you: Here’s a video of him saying exactly that.
Why is this anything other than a liberal talking point?
If cross-state marketing of insurance is allowed as Newt Gingrich (and John McCain before him) advocate it’s a genuine concern not just a talking point (which is a rather dismissive phrase). It was venue shopping for states with lax consumer protection laws on the part of credit card company issuers and mortgage lenders which resulted in the abuses leading to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Industries not abusing their customers don’t need to be regulated.
What is your evidence of this blatant deceit they are practicing?
The House has been in Republican hands for two years. Where is the proposed legislation?
Or his deceitfulness about his own real goals for health care?
Which are?
LikeLike
It was venue shopping for states with lax consumer protection laws on the part of credit card company issuers and mortgage lenders which resulted in the abuses leading to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Industries not abusing their customers don’t need to be regulated.
I see this talking point echoed through the blogosphere all the time. It is based on a complete lack of understanding of bank regulation and insurance regulation.
The reason that national banks can charge interest allowed by their home states is that the National Bank Act says they can. It preempts conflicting state laws. (The CFPB is entirely unnecessary to address this issue and in fact does not address it.) In contrast, states have been granted the power to discriminate against out-of-state insurance companies by Congress; ordinarily, the “dormant Commerce Clause” would not allow them to do so. Removing this power would in no way exempt out-of-state insurance companies from a state’s regulations. That would require an act of Congress containing a “home regulation” clause like the on in the National Bank Act. The situations are completely different.
Of course, all that is accepting the premise that some kind of comprehensive regulation is necessary and beneficial rather than harmful in the first place. The existing insurance laws deprive consumers of choice. No wonder they don’t work.
LikeLike
OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American.
He said it should be one, not that it is one. I think that everyone should be rich, but I don’t think they are. Which did he mean?
If ACA makes it a “right,” what is that right? How can something I am compelled to pay for or be fined by the government be a right?
The House has been in Republican hands for two years. Where is the proposed legislation?
A year, not two.
Many Republicans have proposals. The lack of a passed bill is zero evidence that pols and officials who propose repeal and replacement don’t intend to do what they say. With zero chance to pass a Senate bill or not have it vetoed, however, and with Republicans with their own proposals running to unseat Obama this year, I can’t imagine why there would be a rush to pass something in the House.
Which are?
He’s a supporter of a fully federalized single-payer system. ACA is just the Trojan Horse, bad as it is.
You also didn’t answer re his obvious deceitfulness on gay marriage. No need. We all understand his dishonesty on this, and why is is okay with his supporters.
LikeLike
Also, Scott, no comment on Hatch & Lugar lurching to the right?
LikeLike
I heard the silliest notion from a Republican governor this morning when asked if he would adopt the MA model for his state. He rattled on about gasoline prices at the pump and said that he preferred that people have a chance to call insurance companies for rates and plans. It might be nice if the insurance industry was not a legal monopoly for then there MIGHT be competition. Also the ability for people to pay for these plans is not solved in the free market system when there is no free market in that industry.
LikeLike
Bonus Quote:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “After a year of debate and hearing the calls of millions of Americans, we have come to this historic moment. Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege.”
LikeLike
Nancy’s statement was one of the more fatuous and arrogant (and ahistorical) statements by an official in a long time.
It’s interesting how she said that “health insurance reform” is our “right.” Passed by Congress. So I have a basic human right to insurance that had to be enacted by Congress in 2010. And it apparently includes the “right” to be fined by the government, and have several different faceless panels of DC functionaries decide what I have to buy and for how much. Interesting notion of rights.
LikeLike
Yjkt, I know you at some point today said something to the effect that ease of access to health care could be a favored policy goal and not a right, but then you quoted BHO and NP, whose totally over-the-top pronouncements you implicitly approved [or were you just reporting?]. Obviously, most policy goals are simply not “rights”. I have no problem discussing the relative merits and demerits of policy proposals, but when I am told something that cannot possibly be a “right” is one, that may leave no room for discussion beyond yelling.
Isn’t it patently obvious that health care is not a “right”, and that medical insurance is not a “right”, and that affordability is not a “right”? If it is not patently obvious to anyone here that BHO and NP were gratuitously insulting our collective intelligence or pandering to our perpetual desire for something for nothing than we do have to have the conversation that QB has framed, where we delineate exactly what ought make for a “right”.
I do not in any way think that the abuse of the English language in calling affordable mandatory health insurance a “right” is relevant or germane to the argument about ACA’s strengths and weaknesses, btw. I do think that language was used to gain political support for ACA, in full pander mode, but what else is new?
LikeLike
Yello, when did healthcare become a right? No snark intended.
LikeLike
when did healthcare become a right? No snark intended.
First, please don’t mischaracterize my opinion. QB asked a question about Obama’s opinion and I answered. That does not imply my endorsement of it. While I do see access to health care as a human right, in the current discussion I see carrying health insurance as more of a responsibility.
As for health care being a ‘right’, it is enumerated as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written in 1948 under the auspices of the newly formed United Nations by a committee which included Eleanor Roosevelt and ratified by all but eight of the founding members. While not in and of itself an international law with treaty obligations, it forms the basis for other international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I am certain the sentiment that health and health care as a fundamental human right predates this, but I don’t have the time or inclination to research this further. Should I be charging you guys for all this easily google-able educational material I am presenting? Snark intended.
LikeLike
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care (emphasis added) and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I did not know this existed. Thanks for the google moment. I cannot wrap my thinking around how we can guarantee ourselves these aspirational goals as “rights”.
LikeLike
Mark:
I did not know this existed.
I discovered it several years ago. Can’t remember what the topic was that was under discussion at the time. I found it absurd at the time. It hasn’t gotten better with age.
LikeLike
yello:
That does not imply my endorsement of it.
And yet, it turns out you do. So why not answer McWing’s question?
While I do see access to health care as a human right…
This view makes no sense under any coherent understanding of a what human right can be. One cannot have a “right” to something that can only be supplied by the labor of another person.
As for health care being a ‘right’, it is enumerated as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written in 1948 under the auspices of the newly formed United Nations by a committee which included Eleanor Roosevelt and ratified by all but eight of the founding members.
If the UN (or Eleanor Roosevelt) declared that squares were circles, would you believe it? The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is a smorgasbord of conflicting, nonsensical wishful thinking.
…in the current discussion I see carrying health insurance as more of a responsibility.
If carrying healthcare is a “responsibility”, isn’t exercise also a responsibility? How about healthy eating? If not, why not?
LikeLike
…ahistorical…
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
LikeLike
“Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege.”
Yes, that statement was profoundly ahistorical, not to mention nonsensical. So was this:
“We will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.”
Invoking the founders, the Declaration and the rights it recognized, to justify ACA, let alone claim ACA was their unfinished business, was not only ahistorical and ludicrous but offensive to anyone who actually cares about those things, and, yes, I am implying that Pelosi does not, because she clearly does not.
LikeLike
I did Model United Nations for three years in high school. It’s the second nerdiest activity you can partake in at the secondary school level.
LikeLike
I am well aware of the UDHR and other grand declarations that people have universal rights to stuff. They are all nonsensical.
LikeLike
qb:
They are all nonsensical.
You corked me again. By a single minute.
LikeLike
Scott, I had not corked you in a while. I was due. But you said it with more panache.
LikeLike
“So far that advocates of a federalized health care system and same-sex marriage won’t even admit they are liberals. That’s what has happened.”
You guys only hear what you want to hear.
LikeLike
You guys only hear what you want to hear.
I guess that is what you say when someone cites a whole litany of facts that refute your lecture about our radicalism and your moderation.
LikeLike
Bsimon – Some guy in the House is now campaigning against the phaseout of incandescent lightbulbs that he voted for (and POTUS Bush signed).
Perhaps he had a child or grandchild that received an EasyBake oven and subsequently determined that it required a 100 watt incandescent lightbulb (not included) to run it. and alas…there were none to be found. This is a true story from this Christmas past… I am not saying that EasyBake Ovens are a viable reason to keep ILBs around. I am saying that the nation did ok developing and promoting and selling and using CFLs and LEDs even with the evil Incandescents still legal. But to your point, if someone determines that they made a mistake, is it better to try to rectify it or stick with a position you no longer believe to be the right one? The line is that conservatives are not willing/able to adapt and change…that they are too ridgid and structured and stuck in their ways. That, apparently, is not this person.
LikeLike
BSimon – “That is your perception. Conservatives are taking more extreme positions, in my view, so I challenge them more than the liberals. On healthcare, I don’t particularly care for the ACA, particularly the mandate; but I do understand why its necessary. I don’t see the conservatives offering a viable alternative. So I defend the ACA in the absence of a better alternative – which you presumably view as a ‘liberal’ position”
That is your perception also. My perception is that liberals are taking more extreme positions and this country has shifted substantially to the left since the 1980s socially especially but even fiscally. How can the era of big government be over (as a famous 90s POTUS stated) and we have the ACA?. The question is if you support a number of “liberal” positions (ACA, Same Sex marriage, etc) but for non-liberal reasons, what does that make you? I am not big on labels but if a person takes liberal positions, it seems reasonable to label that person liberal.
BSimon – No new taxes, ever. Dismantle Medicare. Dismantle social security. Eliminate regulation of wall street. Eliminate entire departments within the executive branch (what was Perry’s list; DOEd, DOComm & DOEnergy?).
I have to take issue with this. There is a big difference between dimantle/eliminate and reform/reduce (medicare/SS/Wall Street). Many agencies have been targeted for elimination by conservatives for over 30 years. I am sure this is not a recent trend.
LikeLike
“I guess that is what you say when someone cites a whole litany of facts that refute your lecture about our radicalism and your moderation.”
Yes, those pesky facts.
“Mr. Hatch’s voting record has shifted decidedly rightward. After receiving an 88 percent rating from the Club for Growth political action committee in 2009, he jumped to 100 percent in 2010 and then 99 percent in 2011, far surpassing his lifetime score of 78 percent.”
Lifetime score of 78 moving to 88 in 09, 100 in 10 and 99 in 11. Nope, no rightward shift there at all.
LikeLike
Yes, those pesky facts.
Indeed, which no one has questioned.
Lifetime score of 78 moving to 88 in 09, 100 in 10 and 99 in 11. Nope, no rightward shift there at all.
Let’s get this straight. One Senator’s scores on the CFG scorecard prove that the GOP has moved radically to the right; it makes me tired just thinking of all the fallacies loaded in this claim.
LikeLike
“Liberals and the Democratic Party have moved far to the left. So far that advocates of a federalized health care system and same-sex marriage won’t even admit they are liberals. That’s what has happened.”
there are degrees of ‘federalization’. I would characterize single-payer gov’t run healthcare as a leftist liberal proposal. The ACA doesn’t approach that extreme. It seems like a moderate solution to me; again, what’s the conservative solution to the healthcare problem? That’s right; there isn’t one. But there is a conservative justification for change – the current system is inefficient; its expensive & it produces crap results. Why the resistance to change?
Same sex marriage is part of generational change. It is inevitable, much like mixed-race marriages were 50 years ago. It may comfort you to denigrate it as some kind of liberal indicator of the end times, but the kids these days just don’t view it with the same fear and ignorance as their grandparents.
LikeLike
They are all nonsensical.
You corked me again. By a single minute.
This is the open-minded insightful and diverse commentary people come here for. If only the phrase ‘knee-jerk’ weren’t reserved for liberals. Read them again and see just how many of them are nonsensical since a lot are cribbed from our declaration of independence and constitution.
Are you really opposed to universal suffrage, non-discrimination, and the abolition of slavery?
LikeLike
yello:
This is the open-minded insightful and diverse commentary people come here for.
I’d engage you in a discussion of what a right is, and what that implies about the types of things that can be a right, but generally speaking you are not keen on such investigations, as evidenced by your general refusal to answer questions I put to you.
Are you really opposed to universal suffrage, non-discrimination, and the abolition of slavery?
Of course not. But that doesn’t make the UN Declaration any more sensible. As I said, it is a smorgasbord of contradictions. Consider:
Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 25 – Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The rights recognized in Article 3, specifically the right to liberty, contradicts all of the rights proclaimed in Article 25. Indeed, the “rights” proclaimed in Article 25 cannot be reconciled with any coherent understanding of the term “right” itself. If you disagree, then please forward a definition of “right” which reconciles the above two articles.
As I said, one cannot have a “right” to something that can only be provided by the labor of another person. At least not in the context of that other person being equally free with equal rights, rather than a slave.
LikeLike
yello:
BTW, on this:
If only the phrase ‘knee-jerk’ weren’t reserved for liberals
What makes you think my reaction was a “knee-jerk” reaction rather than a considered reaction? As I mentioned to mark, I have been aware of the UN Declaration for many years. I even once wrote a long piece (on a long since deleted comments board) about it, detailing precisely why I thought it was nonsensical.
I suspect that your reaction to it is more likely a knee-jerk rather than a well-considered reaction…”X is desirable, therefore X is a right.”
LikeLike
I’d engage you in a discussion of what a right is, and what that implies about the types of things that can be a right
I would love to have a discussion about what is a right and what isn’t. But your tone was dismissive of the entire document, rejecting it out of hand because you objected to one particular article. Some of these rights are of the ‘unalienable endowed by our creator’ type, some are seemingly nitpicky political ones (right to travel, right to form trade unions) and some are aspirational.
As an ahistorical document, it is a creation of its times, having been written at the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. As such, many of the rights were honored only in the breach in a great many countries for decades. All of the abstainers on the original resolution were Eastern Bloc nations. The countries that currently object to them the most are Islamic theocracies who see them as violations of their religious beliefs. So when you reject them wholesale, that is the company you are keeping.
As I said, one cannot have a “right” to something that can only be provided by the labor of another person.
Does it all comes down to being forced to pay for something that is a benefit to someone other than yourself? While you have never declared yourself one, there is a strong Randian Objectivist streak to much of the conservative thought on this site. I would say this outlook is greedy and uncompassionate, but that could be a mischarcterization of what may be a purely philosophical position.
generally speaking you are not keen on such investigations, as evidenced by your general refusal to answer questions I put to you.
I answer a lot of your questions. I tend to try to wait some time both to formulate my thoughts and to let other people get a word in edgewise (as the #3 commenter and climbing I should be more judicious lest I get accused of bloghogging). But I don’t feel obligated to rebut every single statement of yours, particularly if I find the framing of the question leading or digressive. It’s a conversation, not a cross-examination.
LikeLike
yello:
But your tone was dismissive of the entire document, rejecting it out of hand because you objected to one particular article.
I am dismissive of the notion that the document is a legitimate authority on what rights inhere in people. Citing it as support for the notion that X is a right, which is what you did, carries no weight, since it is plain that the authors had no coherent understanding of what a right is or can be.
So when you reject them wholesale…
I never said that I reject them wholesale. Indeed, the fact that I pointed to the inherent contradictions in some of the claims indicates that I think some portion of them are indeed correct, and therefore, necessarily, other claims cannot be correct.
Does it all comes down to being forced to pay for something that is a benefit to someone other than yourself?
No, it comes down to non-contradictory thinking. If one person has a “rightful” claim on the labor of a doctor to provide him with health care, then the doctor cannot be said to be rightfully free.
I would say this outlook is greedy and uncompassionate…
Greed and compassion have nothing to do with what is or can be a right. In fact, the notion that I should provide X to a person out of compassion is diametrically opposed to the notion that I should provide X to the person out of rightful obligation.
To say that a person does not have a right to health care is not the same as saying that the only reason to provide him with it is as an exchange of value for value. One might very well decide to provide him with it out of compassion. But it isn’t a right.
LikeLike
Hmm. I’d put myself overall as moderate-liberal in Scott’s classification. Part of this stems from my views on issues, which are often to the right of the Democratic leadership, especially in the House. I identify as a fiscal conservative, both personally and politically. Individuals such as Dave Durenburger, Susan Engeleiter, Tom Davis, and Susan Collins have earned my respect in the way they went about their work. Some are derided as RINOs. Likewise, Democrats such as Jim Webb, Mark Begich, Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine (I really like the Democrats in Virginia right now with a clear exception of my own representative).
My comments here are likely reflect, if you will, the more liberal aspects of my own political opinions. I’m often a counter puncher when it comes to online commentary. If I see something with which I disagree, I’ll voice a contrasting opinion. Threads along the lines of we need to reduce long term obligations tend to peter out as I think virtually everyone agrees that we can’t be spending 40% of GDP on retirement and healthcare for the 60+ crowd. [Or whatever current projections are.] If you look at my comments on the Fix Aficionados group (which has some current and former members here), I came across as one of the most conservative of that crew.
A quick aside. I don’t object to the term liberal. Liberal or progressive; pro-life or anti-abortion. Just labels people like to use. Consider the word retarded, which has largely been replaced by developmentally delayed (up to age 6). Now, retarded and delayed are pretty much the same. But, retarded picked up negative associations and so has been abandoned. Then we have special needs, which is where my sons are classified. It’s an attempt to use a word with generally positive connotations (special) to a largely negative condition. We’ve gone from Negro to Black to African American (which is problematic in that everyone has to be given a qualifying adverb). I liked black myself as skin coloration is fairly neutral.
I self-classify as a moderate liberal, but most definitely as a Democrat.
With regards to the nature of extreme positions, I’ll return to the beloved flat tax. All the proposals I’ve seen kicked around publicly feature a fairly hefty personal exemption, which makes them moderately progressive until one gets to medium-high income levels. As I noted in an early thread, that makes them asymptotically flat taxes. I have not heard serious discussion of a flat tax starting at dollar zero outside this group. I would classify a zero exemption income tax with a single rate as an extreme position. Consumption taxes are different beasties and are in the mainstream of discussion, even though they are regressive as a fraction of income.
I wouldn’t characterize QB or Scott as extremists, but as strongly conservative. More in the Jim Demint or Mike Lee wing of the party rather than the Snowe/Collins wing.
One aside. As this is a thread that attempts to explore political identification in the context of ATiM, comments such as “of course you do” in response to some who self identifies as a moderate take the discussion down a level. Here’s a suggestion. How about ask someone why they consider themselves a moderate? The latter phrasing asks someone to explain their remark. The former comes across as sarcastic.
BB
LikeLike
Jim Moran? It’s disappointing. The district is overwhelmingly Democratic. The local party should be able to find very easily someone who shares his politics but is less of a jerk.
LikeLike
I have not heard serious discussion of a flat tax starting at dollar zero outside this group.
No politician of either party would ever propose it. It would be political suicide.
I would classify a zero exemption income tax with a single rate as an extreme position.
Which is exactly how the payroll taxes work. The regressive aspects of the payroll taxes are mitigated somewhat by the negative rate of the earned income credit which itself is criticized in some quarters as keeping people from having ‘skin in the game’.
The former comes across as sarcastic.
Especially when not accompanied by a smiley.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on February 27, 2012 at 7:00 am said:”
“As I said, one cannot have a “right” to something that can only be provided by the labor of another person.
Does it all comes down to being forced to pay for something that is a benefit to someone other than yourself? While you have never declared yourself one, there is a strong Randian Objectivist streak to much of the conservative thought on this site. I would say this outlook is greedy and uncompassionate, but that could be a mischarcterization of what may be a purely philosophical position.”
I’m fine with being characterized as greedy and uncompassionate. I find the concepts of coercion and compassion to be mutually exclusive, especially when the people advocating the compassion are doing so with other people’s money but not their own.
LikeLike
How is it not dismissing the views of libertarians and conservatives to call them greedy and uncompassionate Randians for rejecting the idea of positive welfare rights, particularly when the person characterizing them also claims not to believe in such rights?
These conversations seem to follow this pattern of liberals’ accusing the other side of being closed-minded and dismissive, while they openly dismiss the other side as not having a perspective that is worthwhile or legitimate.
Interesting.
LikeLike
“I’m fine with being characterized as greedy and uncompassionate.”
Not to speak for jnc4p, but when I think “self-less” and “compassionate” the last thing that come to mind are government programs
LikeLike
nova:
when I think “self-less” and “compassionate” the last thing that come to mind are government programs
Me too.
LikeLike
If one person has a “rightful” claim on the labor of a doctor to provide him with health care, then the doctor cannot be said to be rightfully free.
That is a particularly perplexing strawman. Nobody is saying that medical professionals must donate their time and expertise any more than contractors building public housing projects must donate their time and material. Britain which has nationalized medicine pays their doctors quite handsomely. These benefits are paid by taxpayers, which is still anathema to anti-redistributionists. But nobody is holding a gun to a doctor’s head saying ‘Fix this broken leg.”
LikeLike
It isn’t a straw man at all. Your argument admits that no one has a claim on a doctor’s services. So everyone would agree that, if there ia “right” to health care, it must mean something else.
You’ve just reframed the right to say that John Doe has the right to have taxpayers pay the doctor. But there is no analytical difference between these claims, except that the “taxpayer” alternative is incoherent in positing that everyone owes everyone else. I owe you health care, but you owe me health care. It collapses into absurdity. Moreover, this supposed “right” to have taxpayers pay the doctor ordinarily still involves some type of coercion of the doctor. Collectivist systems often forbid him from being paid outside the system and/or cap what he can be paid.
The ordinary responses to this are collectivist: somehow “we” collectively “owe” each of us X in a way that is different from each of us owing it to each other. It is still incoherent and nonsensical.
LikeLike
yello:
Nobody is saying that medical professionals must donate their time and expertise…
If you assert the existence of a human right to health care, this is precisely what you are saying. To say that a person has a natural/moral/human right to health care is to say that he has a moral claim on the services of whoever must provide it.
Britain which has nationalized medicine…
What Britain, or any country, does as a legal matter has no bearing on the implications of the existence of natural rights. Yes, a government may create a legal right to X, which is to say tax-payer provided X. But the UN Declaration is talking about natural, human rights, which exist regardless of whether or how a government may guarantee them. An articulation of moral rights represents a standard against which legal rights are to be measured…do legal systems recognize and protect these rights? So, to analyze whether such rights exist, we must consider them outside the context of how a legal system might enforce or guarantee them.
So, outside of the context of a legal system, how does one claim this “right” to health care without being able to force someone else, against their will, to provide it?
LikeLike
I am dismissive of the notion that the document is a legitimate authority on what rights inhere in people.
As is your right to be. McWingnut simply asked how long these have been ‘rights’. I provided ahistorical evidence that this thinking goes back at least over half a century. That you disagree with it as an adequately rigorous definition of rights does not negate its existence or that it has been ratified and endorsed by dozens of countries including the United States. The UN rather self-congratulatorily claims it to be one of the most translated documents ever. (I imagine the Bible has a much better claim on that title.)
LikeLike
I have posted a screed called “RIGHTS”. I invite this conversation to my post.
LikeLike
I owe you health care, but you owe me health care.
And one of the easiest ways to implement this if for me to buy my insurance and for you to buy your own and call it a wash. The dilemma is about what to do for persons who cannot afford it on their own. Anti-redistributionists would say they have to do without. Others say it is the responsibility of the government to provide it using funds taxed from the general populace in the name of ‘general welfare.’
LikeLike
In the context of human rights vs. natural rights, shall we consider emergency treatment? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 imposes an obligation on private enterprises, namely that those needing emergency care receive treatment, regardless of ability to pay.
This is clearly an unfunded mandate. Safeway doesn’t have an obligation to let hungry people pick up a few sandwiches, why should Innova have an obligation to treat a gunshot victim? A student at an Ohio school went on a shooting spree today, killing one and injuring several students. One of the victims is in critical condition. Absent that act of Congress, would a hospital be within its [i]legal[\i] rights to deny treatment absent of proof of ability to pay? If not, it would appear that the hospital hsa been forced, against its will, to provide treatment.
BB
LikeLike
fb:
In the context of human rights vs. natural rights…
I think the distinction is between natural/human/moral rights and legal rights. I use the terms natural rights and human rights to refer to the same thing.
Absent that act of Congress, would a hospital be within its legall rights to deny treatment absent of proof of ability to pay?
I don’t know. It depends upon what other laws say.
If not, it would appear that the hospital hsa been forced, against its will, to provide treatment.
If a doctor/hospital does not want to treat a patient, but the law compels him to, then yes, the doctor/hospital has been forced against its will to provide treatment. That seems like a pretty non-controversial statement of fact.
But the real issue with regard to health care as a right is not whether there are or can be laws granting a legal right to treatment…clearly there are and can be. Just as there have been and can be laws granting the right to own another person. Laws can grant any rights that it strikes lawmakers to grant.
The question at hand is whether it makes any sense to say that a person has a moral (natural/human) right to health care. I don’t think it does, for reasons stated previously.
LikeLike
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986…
Who was president then? I forget.
LikeLike
yello:
Who was president then?
Reagan. Does that have a bearing on whether health care can sensibly be said to be a right?
LikeLike
Going back to the origional topic of the post, I think if Okie, Michi and lmsinca all stopped posting this would become a largely conservative boys club. Yello, msjs and fb have not contributed as often in the past although I am glad to have yello and fb posting more often.
With respect to all the rest, ATiM’s will cease to fulfill its purpose if people like lmsinca get scared off. To be honest, I don’t care about why lmsinca is on hiatus. The fact that she left should be enough to have us all reevaluating our behavior. To some extent that has occurred, but much of the Hiatus thread is devoted to defending what was said that led to lsminca leaving. For example, I do not care if qb’s response to michi was measured and justified. The point of this place is not to make measured and justified witicisms. The whole point of ATiM to not make these comments when faced comments that make you want to do so. There are plenty of examples of such posts from commentors of all political persuasions, so this is not an intent to single out QB or anyone else. i just think we need to turn down the sarcasm level a bit and get back to having a discussion rather than attempting to win a discussion.
LikeLike
ashot,
Your statement is entirely reasonable.
But on the other hand it seems to me that if anyone is going to quit over a pithy response to the sorts of barbed comments that were directed at us, that person was going to find a reason to be offended and hurt, and to quit, no matter what anyone else did.
I try to be humane and sociable here, but, as more than one of us has observed over a long period of time, ultimately it is not possible not to be misunderstood.
Someone who is eager to be angry or take offense will find a reason.
LikeLike
qb:
Someone who is eager to be angry or take offense will find a reason.
Isn’t that the truth.
LikeLike
Going back to the original topic of the post…
As for whether or not this has become a right wing echosphere, the comment distribution on todays RIGHTS post can be used as a piece of evidence. Either liberals have fled or the discussion of obscure Enlightenment philosophical constructs bores them to tears.
LikeLike
yello:
Either liberals have fled…
Well, one of them clearly has, as she announced it. a couple of the others, I suspect, have followed suit.
LikeLike
My posting has been less active in the past owing to professional obligations. I don’t comment all that much on the Washington Post blogs anymore either. If things don’t change, I might wind up having a LOT more time to post on blogs in the near future.
In regards to tone, I think it’s worth considering how one’s comment would be taken if it were said amongst friends. I was out of line with a shot I took at QB a few weeks ago. I referenced earlier Scott’s comment in this thread (of course you do). Didn’t get a response, but I think that comments meant to shut someone down are best held.
BB
LikeLike
fb:
Didn’t get a response…
I didn’t know you were looking for one.
LikeLike
I don’t think any of us can be classified at the moment as having “fled;” I, myself, am just dealing with an emotionally draining and difficult personal issue. All of us, with the possible exceptions of lms and mark, have at one time or another fired off a comment that was out of line.
But there is also a marked shift of commentary to the right and the tone is different when the women aren’t commenting for whatever reason.
LikeLike
More strong contributors rather than fewer would be great.
I am thinking that perhaps doing more links to interesting news and commentary, with short commentary to spur discussion, might move things in a good direction.
LikeLike
qb@5:40pm and scott@8:15pm:
Someone who is eager to be angry or take offense will find a reason.
That probably is true, but I don’t see it as accurately describing what occurred and is continuing to occur here at ATiM.
LikeLike
okie,
Obviously we have differing perspectives on that. In my view, there could not be a much clearer example of assuming worst in others, imputing the worst motives, putting the worst construction on their words, refusing to investigate the real facts or consider less outrageous interpretations, and lashing out, only to take further offense at terse but far more civil responses to the forgoing. I don’t think this happens unless someone already assumes the worst attitudes and motives and is expecting to see them manifested.
If you don’t think this is accurate, it isn’t the first disagreement here. Believe me, I’ve moved on. But I’m not going to pretend that I saw it differently or didn’t learn a disappointing lesson.
LikeLike
okie:
…but I don’t see it as accurately describing what occurred and is continuing to occur here at ATiM.
Obviously we can’t know anyone else’s mind. But I do think that when one person takes offense at what someone else has said, it tends to destroy at least in part the sense of goodwill that, one hopes, would otherwise ground discussions. And the destruction of that goodwill makes the taking of further offense that much more likely.
Just to be clear, this does not imply judgement about the merits of the original reaction. I’m just making an observation about why these types of things, once they occur, tend to escalate and become difficult to get past. And I do suspect that is what is continuing to occur here at ATiM.
LikeLike
Scott and QB- There certainly needs to be understanding from both sides. We will inevitably fail at refraining from all sarcastic, pithy responses. When that happens, whoever feels dismissed or attacked will, ideally, take a deep breath like the offender failed to do. Maybe I’m just biased in favor of lmsinca, but she does not seem the sort to take offense easily so I’m inclined to think that we’re missing it, not her.
I think we can do a little better job and I do think both of you and the other posters here have acknowledged as much. We are already way ahead of the curve to begin with and the willingness to continue to try to do better puts us even further ahead of most blogs.
Either liberals have fled or the discussion of obscure Enlightenment philosophical constructs bores them to tears.
This moderate liberal confirms it was the latter, not the former.
LikeLike
ashot:
This moderate liberal confirms it was the latter, not the former.
That’s unfortunate (not that you haven’t fled, but rather that you are bored with philosophical discussions about rights). When real life policy preferences are being advocated for and implemented on the basis of controversial claims about what people are entitled by right, it seems to me not only sensible but imperative that the basis of those controversial claims be discussed.
LikeLike
More strong contributors rather than fewer would be great.
I am thinking that perhaps doing more links to interesting news and commentary, with short commentary to spur discussion, might move things in a good direction.
Agreed. If all of us could simply make 1 or 2 posts a week, we would probably be better off. Like you said, QB, they can be a single link with a 2 sentence comment. Linking to other stories and having more posts will also probably lead to more views and ideally new contributors.
LikeLike
Precisely my thought, ashot. Link interesting stories and dash off a few sentences, and it is more likely to move discussion, keep things fresh, attract people rather than drive them away with reenactments of the War of the Roses.
Many of us let the perfect be the enemy of the good in posting material. I am most guilty. (But I’m also juggling an insane number of things.)
LikeLike
I’ve got QBs problem. I agree 100% with Ashot. And, if interested in both driving discussion and using the WP platform to attract people other than ourselves, occasionally patching some subjects together based on what’s trending on Google (or Twitter, though I don’t have a Twitter account, so I’d leave that to someone else) would help. You can, occasionally, find hot news or other topics of interest trending on Google that you might want to write on, and if you use the trending term in the tag and subject, it gets promoted in some searches.
Write now, this would be a good time to write a post on the Ohio school shooting or sean young or Juan Pablo Montoya. Terms like iHop or Nascar News (or Nascar, all hot right now) are not worth writing on because the web universe is full of Nascar stuff that’s been produced for years. There’s going to be less stuff on Juan Pablo Montoya.
http://www.google.com/trends/
I’ve invited someone I knew from the distant past to come by. He’s generally a very, very conservative fellow (as I recall), but I just don’t have that many people interested in the politics and ideological discussions, etc. If anybody knows some more liberals, then, by all means. 😉
LikeLike
That’s unfortunate (not that you haven’t fled, but rather that you are bored with philosophical discussions about rights).
Sure, Scott, I know what you meant. Saying I was bored is a probably going too far, but I felt out of depth with much of what was being discussed and I took several political theory courses in my undergrad. So if I felt out of my depth, I can only imagine how others felt. The other issue was that it wasn’t the sort of discussion I felt I could just hop into and as I was working on a motion, I was not going to comment.
Anyway, it goes to support QB recommendation that we have more and varied posts so that there is something for everyone. If they have time to engage in a philosophical debate then I am sure there will be opportunity to do so, if not then ideally we’ll have something they can comment on without brushing up on their Enlightment philosophical constructs.
LikeLike
ashot:
Understood, and agree.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m just biased in favor of lmsinca, but she does not seem the sort to take offense easily so I’m inclined to think that we’re missing it, not her.
I think these sorts of things tend to be like naturally occurring land mines (or sinkholes). It’s not that either party doesn’t get some universal “it”, it’s just certain connectors simply aren’t compatible in some ways where they are and others. There are both general differences in how people communicate based on differences in generation, gender, background, etc, and then individual differences. People have trip wires they don’t always know they have, and there are plenty of documented examples of how our brains rationalize in the absence of information in ways we have no conscious awareness of . . . which makes it hard for us to get to a point of really understanding why something we said is offensive, or why this other person won’t stop saying these offensive things.
I’ve cited this before but I’ll cite it again:
4 Reasons Humans Will Never Understand Each Other.
I would amplify on the problem of putting ourselves in other peoples shoes: when we project ourselves into the other person, we remain ourselves. But it’s hard for me not to think that, well, if I kept using those “x” and “y” formulas like Scott does, I’d be purposefully trying to condescend to people in order to piss them off because I hate humanity (this is a theoretical example). So because that’s what it would mean if I was doing it, then that must be what it means when he does it. Even though, in truth, Scott is just trying to clarify his thinking.
But . . . we pick up a subtext in conversations, whether live or in person or on the internet. We hear the meaning we would be putting into the subtext, if we were the other person talking this way, even if that’s not the meaning at all.
And, people can just not want an dry and analytical approach to an emotional subject, or vice versa, or even feel that it’s inappropriate for this subject (x) but not (y), so it’s okay when we discuss Y with abstract attachment, but if we discuss X with abstract attachment it’s dismissive and misogynistic or racist or . . .
We often poo-poo political correctness, or treat it with derision (as perhaps we should). But it did not come out of nowhere. The accusation of crypto-racism doesn’t come out of nowhere, either. People really believe they are perceiving hidden or extra meaning. That faint clues provide vast evidence as to what is in people’s hearts and minds, or as to the “real meaning” of what they are saying. I think we all do this, to some extent, but we’re all working from different decoder rings . . . and it makes communication on non-emotional subjects that aren’t that personal to anybody problematic. When people do have a lot of emotional thought, or time and energy, invested in a subject, it becomes tough to talk about.
But over-complicating the dialog with endless rules about who can say what, how, why, and where doesn’t end up working, either. Yet, clearly some topics are such that thinking about it in the abstract in ways that cobble together questionable metaphors become offensive or alienating to some people.
There are clearly some topics about which, to some people, there are some dumb questions. Or offensive statements—even if the people involved are just thinking out loud. In some areas, there’s no thinking out loud.
At the same time, all of us have seen topics (even here) where there has been plenty of thinking out loud in ways we didn’t think much of, sometimes by some of the same people who don’t like our thinking out loud on some other topic. It begins to feel a little like a double-standard, I guess. You guys can think out loud but we don’t get to, without people taking their ball and going home? Well, that stinks.
Of course, I always think out loud in my comment-participation, so . . . I dunno.
Like I’ve always said. Grand experiment. Noble but doomed. Either it’s going to collapse completely, or become an entirely one-side-or-the-other blog.
Human beings just aren’t that good at talking to each other. 🙂
LikeLike
Kevin:
Your link has been blocked by my office net-nanny “because the category “tasteless and offensive” is not allowed”.
Now I am even more intrigued about what it says.
LikeLike
Scott: from the article:
In many ways, everyone who is different from us is a bewildering, inexplicable enigma. They arbitrarily hate the things we like and like the things we hate, and behave in ways we can’t predict. That makes us hate them a little. We end up concluding that these people (members of the opposite sex, opposing political party, owners of a rival video game system) are just one-dimensional stock characters placed as obstacles or foils in the movie that is our life.
This has created a society that is almost sitcomlike in its huge, but simple, misunderstandings. It would be hilarious if the results weren’t so tragic, and it’s all due to the fact that we not only do not understand each other, but don’t even try. That’s because …
#4. We Think Trying to Understand Someone is the Same as Siding With Them
At some point after 9/11 when things had calmed down just a bit, some progressive guest on a news show was the first to say, “We need to understand why these people hate us.” This person was immediately drowned out by a chorus of flag-pin-wearing pundits screaming, “The only thing we need to ‘understand’ about these maniacs is where to aim our cruise missiles! Now is no time to coddle terrorists, hippie!” You get the same reaction if you say you want to “understand” the motives of a spree killer or rapist, as if understanding bad guys is the same as giving in to them.
Somehow the idea has taken hold that understanding somebody you hate only benefits them, as if the only end goal is to be more sympathetic to the racist or terrorist or Wall Street crook or Star Wars prequel fan. Some people think that it’s really about giving the awful people a chance to convince us they’re not so bad.
We’re afraid that trying to understand a terrorist opens the door for us having to say that blowing up civilians really isn’t that bad, or understanding a criminal means we have to excuse all his crimes because he had a bad childhood. That is silly. Understanding is just about gaining knowledge. Once you’ve gained that knowledge, you can decide what to do with it. This includes using that knowledge to defeat them, if that’s what the situation calls for. It applies to terrorists or criminals or aggressive co-workers or Internet trolls. You can’t fight what you don’t understand.
As a wise man once said, “In order to trap him, he must become him.”
Sometimes you need to metaphorically undergo surgery to replace your face with your enemy’s face, and (also metaphorically) infiltrate a prison and talk to your enemy’s brother in order to find out where the metaphorical bomb is. You don’t have to learn any lesson about how he’s “really not that bad,” and quite likely will learn he’s even worse than you thought, murdering all your co-workers and displaying a creepy obsession with peaches.
I’m not going to dive into the debate about whether torture is effective, but I will say that interrogators have “broken” al-Qaida operatives with gestures as simple as bringing sugar-free cookies to a diabetic or finding a suspect’s childhood nickname and calling him by it. One link in the chain to capturing al-Qaida’s top guy in Iraq involved an American interrogator taking the time to find out why one imam was so pissed at Americans and then just saying sorry.
If you’re not in the habit of defusing bombs, in daily life you can still figure out what annoying people (salesmen, clingy friends, prickly co-workers) want so you can convince them you don’t have it and get them to go away. For example, if you understand what kind of attention a certain type of Internet troll is looking for, you can make sure they don’t get it, and often they’ll move on to a new target.
So yeah, sometimes understanding other people helps them out, but it always helps you out, because knowledge, power, all that. You can learn to be nicer and more sympathetic to them, or you can learn how to push their buttons to get what you want. That’s up to you, but you’ll never even get that choice until you get through step one and try to understand them.
#3. We Put Ourselves in Other People’s Shoes
“But wait,” you might think. “Isn’t that exactly what we’re supposed to do? Isn’t it a good thing?” The problem, as I see it, is it only gets you halfway there. Too often you put yourself in someone else’s shoes — but you stay you. You basically Quantum Leap yourself into someone else’s situation with all your knowledge and emotional resources.
In this awful, well-meaning article, a middle-aged white writer talks about what he would do if he were a poor black kid, and about how he would take advantage of all the resources and options available to poor black kids who have the memories and knowledge of a middle-aged white guy implanted into their brains.
Unfortunately, while we have the technology to surgically swap the face of a cop with that of a criminal, we don’t yet have the technology to implant memories into kids’ brains. And good luck getting Congress to fund that kind of procedure for inner city kids anyway.
On top of magically knowing how to hit up accounting and architecture firms for cheap or free computers and instinctively understanding all the specific technical and scientific jargon in the research papers he wants these kids to look up, the writer has also been able to carry along his free time and stable living situation when he Quantum Leaped into their bodies, which I’m pretty sure goes against the rules of the show.
People in a different economic class aren’t just basically you, in a different zip code, with crappier stuff. “Imagine all the stuff I have is smaller and crappier and I live in a bad neighborhood” isn’t going to cut it.
Having less money doesn’t just mean they can’t buy a computer; sometimes it means they don’t have time to use any computer because they are working or running the household every non-school hour. And less money doesn’t just mean a smaller house; sometimes it means getting evicted every few months because you don’t have enough money to really rent anything. Good luck keeping your ISP when you can’t even keep your apartment.
Instead of learning two or three facts about people in a different situation and trying to fill in the rest by picturing ourselves if those two or three facts were true about us, you get a lot further much faster by just putting yourself away for a bit and maybe asking, or reading about, what a typical day for the other person is like.
If you really want to know what it’s like for someone else, you have to be able to picture them in their shoes. Not you.
LikeLike
Continued . . .
#2. We Treat Other People Like Aliens/Robots
Curiously enough, while assuming too much in common with other people is a pitfall, it’s just as bad to assume we have too little in common. You can see it in a lot of people’s questions about the opposite sex. “Why do men do X?” “What do women want?” (As opposed to “Why does Eric do X?”) We do things for our own individual reasons, because of experience, personality and other factors, but members of the opposite sex are clearly automatons who make most of their relationship decisions because of their gender programming.
It’s the same thing with people on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. When extreme right-wingers go on about how Barack Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya when his Hawaiian birth certificate is publicly available and his last religious scandal was about his inflammatory Christian pastor, we wonder how on earth they can keep believing these crazy things.
It’s easy to just say, “They’re crazy, who can explain crazy people?” and be done with it. It’s easy to act like there’s a separate species of people that naturally believes only wrong things, like dogs chasing squirrels, or rabbits digging holes.
It’s harder to think that these are human beings who probably don’t arbitrarily decide on a hobby of being wrong about things because it is fun, and that they’re being driven by basic human qualities that we also have, like fear or ego. Or that they feel the need to make larger-than-life monsters and heroes out of real people (throwing away facts to do so) in order to make sense out of the confusing and painful situation our country has been going through (the economy, the release of the Ghost Rider sequel, etc.).
They’re not good reasons, but they are reasons, beyond just “They’re bad people, that’s what bad people do.”
One of the most poorly used words to describe why bad people do what they do is “hate.” Everything from racial attacks to bullying to terrorism to political rhetoric is driven by “hate,” which has pretty much become a catch-all word to cover any kind of conflict.
Unfortunately, sometimes this gives the wrong impression that all the racists, sexists and demagogues are basically the same — they have some kind of burning anger against people who are different and just want to lash out against them. Who knows where it comes from, and who cares?
I think it does matter where it comes from. “Hate” can come from motivations as diverse as fear, a misguided sense of protectiveness or plain anger. People can “hate” another group because they feel threatened or insecure (people who are afraid of losing jobs to Mexicans, people who think China is going to take over America). They might “hate” because they mistakenly think the other group wants to damage something important — their culture or their families — and while they’re not scared for themselves, they believe they’re bravely standing up to protect something good. Or they might just have a deep-seated anger from past experience and need someone to blame it on.
I’m normally not a fan of memes, but nobody says it better than this eagle.
Those are all bad, but they’re not the same exact kind of people. Different things set them off. If you know the type you’re dealing with, you know how to avoid giving them fuel and escalating a tense situation — at a family gathering, at a party, at a political rally, on an Internet forum, wherever. If you try to reassure someone motivated more by anger than fear that they don’t have to be afraid of that group, you could piss them off even more by mistakenly implying they’re afraid. (Or if you accuse someone who mistakenly thinks they’re protecting their family or livelihood of being motivated by revenge.) Or you can shake your head and say “Hate is so sad” and write them all off, whatever.
#1. We Make Bad Guys into Cartoons
Beyond people who merely talk crazy are people who really seem to be straight-out evil, like terrorists or dictators. But they’re human beings, too. Unlike in cartoons, evil people don’t wake up in the morning and do things for the sake of evil, just because they are bad guys. They’re motivated by the some of the same things we are — self-interest, for one. No dictator wants to blow up a city just to further the cause of chaos in the world. He blows up cities to scare people into giving him what he wants — land, power, money, whatever. Even Dr. Evil at least wanted one million dollars.
Militant zealots, on the other hand, are motivated by what they think is “a good cause.” They think they are helping their country, people or religion by blowing up a bus. Terrorists don’t “hate our freedom,” they love their culture/religion/people and think that attacking Americans can help the things they love, or maybe just earn them 72 virgins, which goes back to self-interest.
Apparently there’s no truth to the assertion that that passage can be misinterpreted as “72 raisins,” which means I won’t be martyring myself. Virgins taste terrible.
Most of us don’t have to deal with dictators or terrorists every day, but we apply this same cartoon mentality to people in our own country. A lot of people didn’t see President Bush as a guy with good intentions and stupid, wrong policies but as a vile being intentionally trying to “destroy America.” Similarly, a lot of people opposed to Obama now are positive he can’t really believe his policies will help America, but that he is deliberately, for some reason, trying to destroy America and make it inferior to Europe, because I guess he can’t wait to be the leader of a second-rate country.
If that’s what he wanted, he’d just run for prime minister of Canada. Ha ha! Wait, do they get Internet in Canada? Uh oh.
Sure, politicians might not have the purest motives, but nobody wants to fucking tank their own country while they are in charge so that everyone in the whole world can know that they screwed it up. A bad person might be motivated by greed, pride or any other deadly sin, but whatever awful thing they’re after, it’s supposed to benefit themselves in some way. At least the accusation about Bush starting the Iraq War just to get Halliburton some business made sense from a human nature perspective, even if it’s pretty oversimplified and hyperbolic.
It’s like Gargamel. He wanted to eat the Smurfs, or turn them into gold, depending on which episode you were watching. It didn’t make a lot of sense but at least he got something out of it.
But no fucking human being wakes up in the morning and schemes about how they are going to “destroy America” for the sake of evil. No matter how awful you think abortion supporters or opponents are, they’ve convinced themselves that the side they picked is really the right thing to do or, at the very least, they are getting money or positive attention by lobbying for it. Even people who worship Satan do it because they think it will make them look cool. People do what they do because they think it’s right, or to benefit themselves, or both. Nobody pursues evil like some kind of charitable cause.
Sure, villains like Cobra Commander, dedicated to pursuing pure evil in an almost selfless way (what does anybody get out of destroying the world?), are great for kids and their simple minds, but if adults hold on to that image of evil, we miss out on finding their motivations and therefore getting some key tips on how to negotiate with them or stop them — or how to stop other people from turning out like them.
LikeLike