HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr. 28, 2005 “If I missed
something in Mr. Smiths article please enlighten
me.” Besides, the point, no, you missed nothing ;) That was a joke – perhaps you'll find my attempt at humor has improved with this article? The rebuttal from Mr. Hughes to my rebuttal can almost serve as an example to support my article. It's all about nuance, Mr. Hughes. I guess we can consider this a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal. I hesitated to write this – I'm not sure I want a long back and forth “debate” - this isn't a web forum, after all. In the end, I decided, why not? Someone may find the exchange interesting! Besides, rebuttals are easier to write than figuring out something creative from scratch ;) Lets start with the title: The old “socialism is evil” maneuver strikes again! I don't embrace socialism or capitalism. Both are economic systems that work well together. Mr. Hughes said that capitalism props up socialism in many countries. He is correct, but it makes more sense if we lose the emotional aspect. Pure socialism doesn't work very well, and he is quite correct about China – its “free market” zones are the reason for its success. I rather think that the socialist philosophers had ideas, many of which failed in real world experiments. Many, but not all, and to be able to appreciate this, we need nuance. Bill O'Reilly uses a similar tactic, calling someone a “socialist” while shaking his finger – as if socialism is vile or dirty. While one-dimensional thinkers may salivate at Bill's phony-frustration, keep in mind that the things we hate about communist countries have little to do with their economic systems. Nuclear weapons, closed-societies, one-party systems, lack of basic freedoms and rights, torture, world domination goals – these are the “bad things” (actually, if the Soviets had used more capitalistic systems, they would likely have been better able to afford more armed forces and nukes and might still be a threat to us today). Socialism as an economic tool isn't “stained” or connected to Soviet style dictatorships – no one wants a one-party system in America (well, except possibly the current batch of Republicans in power) – the Cold War is over, after all, and we won. The modern industrial democracies have high standards of living in part because of their socialist programs (social security, for example). Currently, some of these capitalist countries which are arguably the most “socialized” are doing the best in many categories, giving their citizens the highest standards of living the world has ever seen. In the black and white world (which doesn't exist), where capitalism is bad, and socialism is good, I guess it would seem as if I was “embracing socialism”. But then my article was precisely about a world of gray, was it not? A better way to talk about these countries is to say that they have “mixed economies” – mixed economies, like ours, do very very well. I know that “mixed” doesn't turn red-faced people redder (like calling someone a vile, dirty, socialist does), but what can I say – reality isn't always as fun as fiction... To rip apart and explain this nuance completely then, let me bring this back to politics. If a liberal is in favor of a program which is something other than “let the market decide everything”, it is not bad-by-default, it is not immoral, and it doesn't deserve finger waiving. As Thomas L. Friedman agrees in his new book, “The World is Flat”, not only should we prevent the Republicans from rolling back the New Deal (a grand American socialist program, one could argue), we should expand it and make a New New-Deal! Now lets talk about Franken. Mr. Hughes is not a “fan”. I am, however. Liberals are indeed accused of being “communist atheists”. If Mr. Hughes has never been exposed to this connection, then perhaps he should do a bit of research after all: “The last time I
checked the religious right had the same standing in
our society as the
illiterate left. I could be wrong, I'm not good at
research. “
I'm not a comedian, but doesn't this beg a joke, something like, "you can teach a Conservative to read, but you can't lead him to research"? No, I somehow botched that joke, but Al Franken could have pulled that one off and gotten even Delay to smile, I reckon'. Al Franken is a liberal, and a believer – like many people. In case Mr. Hughes missed it, Senator Frist is going to partake in a plan to cast all liberals/Democracts as “non-believers” because they have a differing political opinion. Is my meaning more clear now? As for “antisemitism” - which statement was antisemitic – that Al only “believes in half of the Bible”? How is this an insult (it certainly wasn't meant as one)? I don't “believe” in either Testament – did I just insult myself? If you want antisemitism, watch, “The Passion” again. I thought that nugget was the funniest bit in my piece – oh well, a comedian I'm not I suppose... To address the bit about the connection between Conservative political policies and Jesus a bit more – much has been written about folks voting against their own best economic interests since the last presidential election, casting their ballot for gay and abortion issues instead. Further, you will find staunchly Conservative Christians defending Republican political views as if they were Gospel - everything from welfare reform to environmental policy. One good example is gambling - many locals are broke, but raising taxes is a Republican-taboo - what to do? Gambling! Gambling used to be a religious-Right taboo, but, no longer. Another example is Texas. Texas was a Democratic state. The Republican takeover there was aided by the fact that the Democratic governor of Texas at the time dared to hire some homosexuals. I wonder if Liberals should use wedge issues, and call all Conservatives racists? Nah - we have morals – we shouldn't stoop so low [relax, merely sarcasm!]. Many nuance lacking Conservatives, the ones which take their hogwashing duties seriously, along with the ignorant hayseeds [just joking, of course], cannot separate out the various pieces of the political-issues mix. As I implied in my last piece about this topic, a bit of nuance reveals that the faithful come in all economic stripes (to give just one example), and “values” go far beyond wedge-issues. As to how the Founders felt about the wall of separation, well, I was right about that too, but that's for a future article, this one has rambled on long enough... ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
