Re: [OT] Compassionate Conservatism and "moral values"

In article <l78cf.8857$Dk.1707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <2005110622575975249%briantlewis@STOPTHESPAMcincirrcom>,
> > Brian Lewis <briantlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 2005-11-06 21:25:16 -0500, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <2005110617090616807%briantlewis@STOPTHESPAMcincirrcom>,
> >>> Brian Lewis <briantlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What is your definition of "mainstream"?
> >>>
> >>>That tends to be one of those "I know it when I see it" things, though
> >>>issue polls can help to define things. The mainstream tends to be
> >>>fairly conservative on most issues -- in the traditional sense there's
> >>>reasonably satisfaction with the status quo. This puts the mainstream
> >>>pretty squarely at odds with the current bunch of Republicans, who want
> >>>fairly radical change in everything from tax policy to social policy to
> >>>the international order.
> >>
> >>Let's go a little further. What would you consider a mainstream view of:
> >>
> >>1: Taxes
> >
> >
> > People hate taxes, of course, but seem extremely positive about many of
> > the services they pay for, and mostly seem to understand that, you know,
> > those things cost money.
> I'm annoyed when I'm forced to pay for services that I do not need, do
> not want, and cannot ethically support. It's extortion, plain and simple.

I agree, but it goes even further than that. We Americans get fewer
"services" for our money than anyone in the developed world. One thing
that I'm tired of paying for is a huge military so that my country can
play "world policeman." A role that nobody appreciates or particularly
wants us to play.

> > The polls on http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm might helpful.
> > Polls are always tricky, because your average American doesn't
> > necessarily have consistent views, but they're unavoidable if you're
> > trying to gauge public opinion.
> The average American is about as bright as your average chimpanzee--and
> as independent as the same. They're led about by the nose, and will
> typically resent the ideals of whoever is in power simply because both
> major political parties fail to understand what the average American
> wants. Free beer, free sex, and free food would get you 90% of the
> population.
>
> >
> > What do we learn? Well, 54% to 39%, Americans think the Bush tax cuts
> > haven't been worth it, because of increased deficits and program cuts.
> Yeah, I'd be irritated if my monthly check from the government was
> reduced too. "Average American" includes people living entirely on
> government intervention. No *** they don't like program cuts. No one
> likes having to actually work.
>
> > On the other hand, 70% to 26%, people don't want to see taxes raised to
> > cut the deficit; go figure. But there isn't a majority to support
> > cutting either domestic programs or defense spending in order to do it
> > either.
> See above. Slash both. Defense should be for *defense* of American soil
> and *American* interests only. 'Domestic Programs' have no
> constitutional justification whatsoever.

Agreed.


> > 51% of Americans think their federal income taxes are too high; 44% say
> > they're about right.
> I'd think 'nothing' was about right as well, if I were living below the
> poverty line.
>
> > On the other hand, in the same poll, 61% vs. 34%
> > say their federal income taxes are fair. The *really* interesting thing,
> > though, is the table breaking out what people think about who should be
> > paying more or less in federal taxes.
> This is what I mean about your lack of citation. Please provide *links*
> to these polls, that include the specific wording of the question, and
> preferably the demographics targeted and source of the information.
>
> > I won't go through all the results
> > here, but the data pretty clearly supports the idea that most Americans
> > want a somewhat more progressive tax system, and more corporate taxes as
> > well.
> Yes--because you include bottom run income earners. No *** they want to
> be handed money and services for nothing. I'd like to be handed free
> services too.
>
> >
> >
> >>2: Lawsuits
> >
> >
> > This is a tricky one, because it's a subject about which most people
> > have no real knowledge on which to base any sort of informed opinion.
> > Polls on http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm show that more people
> > than not seem to favor caps on lawsuit awards, but the Republicans have
> > been extremely effective at convincing people that large awards
> > represent a major cost to consumers, which is objectively not the case.
> > If people were more aware of the actual facts, I suspect they wouldn't
> > see a problem with the present system.
> This is what we mean when we say that you ignore facts that fly in the
> face of your opinion.
>
> >
> >
> >>3: Role of the judiciary
> >
> >
> > I don't think there's really a coherent mainstream position on this
> > issue. Most Americans haven't got a 'judicial philosophy'. My reading is
> > that people side with the courts when the courts are doing things they
> > like, and decry the power of 'unelected judges' when the courts are
> > doing things they don't like.
> >
> > In general, Americans are leery of courts overturning major precedents
> > that have significant impact on their own lives.
> Americans are typically leery of legislation from the bench.
>
> >
> > What's interesting about this particular issue is that the right-wing
> > rhetoric against 'activist judges' is severely at odds with reality.
> > Conservative justices on the Supreme Court vote to overturn legislation
> > far more often than the supposedly liberal justices.
> Judicial activism does not mean 'they overturn lots of laws'. It means
> they set lots of precidents not supported by written law, or loosely
> supported by weak arguments the judge happens to agree with.
>
> > I'm not sure how
> > effective the whole 'activist judge' line is in the first place, though;
> > I think most people are smart enough to recognize that applying the law,
> > certainly at the level of the state and federal supreme courts, *always*
> > requires interpretation, so the whole idea of decrying 'activist judges'
> > is a bit silly.
> People expect these officials to 'interpret' the law in the most
> reasonable manner possible.
>
> >
> >
> >>4: Health care
> >
> >
> > http://www.pollingreport.com/health2.htm
> >
> > People generally seem dissatisfied with both the cost and quality of
> > health care in this country.
> This does not mean they support a single-payer government run health
> insurance program.
>
> >
> > 69% to 28%, they say it should be legal to import drugs from Canada, so
> > they seem to disagree with the Republicans there.
> They disagree with *some* Republicans--Republicans who do not reflect
> even the majority of the Republican party.
>
> > 79% to 17% they say
> > that providing health coverage for all Americans is more important than
> > holding down taxes,
> But this does *not* mean they favor government-provided health care over
> privately funded health care. It just means they consider the issue to
> be more important than a reduction in taxation (not that they think
> taxes are low enough at present). Also, consider that these polls
> include those that would directly benefit more than they do the people
> who would have to bear the cost.
>
> > another strike for the current Republican
> > leadership. 62% to 33%, people say they would support a universal health
> > care system, which seems to put them slightly to the left of most
> > *Democrats*.
> If you are referring to the following question:
> "Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the
> United States, in which most people get their health insurance from
> private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal
> health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program
> like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?"
>
> Then you are once again making conclusions not based on the question
> asked. It doesn't explicitly state that they think universal health care
> is the best solution--it means they think it's better than the
> theoretical situation presented in alternative.
>
> >
> >
> >>5: Education
> >
> >
> > http://www.pollingreport.com/educatio.htm
> >
> > Education is a mixed bag. More oppose charter schools than favor them
> > (but it's close). School vouchers seem reasonably popular, but support
> > drops off a lot if the money is coming out of public school funds. More
> > people than not (54% vs. 43%) say the government shouldn't be giving
> > money to religious schools. 65% of Americans think public education
> > funding should be increased (vs. 8%), and 61% oppose cutting funding to
> > underperforming schools.
> This just demonstrates the fact that your average American doesn't seem
> to understand the fact that throwing money at a problem does not solve it.
>
> >
> > In general I'd say Americans seem very supportive of public education,
> > which seems to put them more in line with Democrats than with the
> > current bunch of Republicans.
> Those 'current bunch of Republicans' are not indicitive of the majority
> of the Republican party. They only got in for lack of an alternative
> that reasonable people will actually vote for (why they won't vote for
> third parties is beyond me--really, if you never vote for them because
> they're too small, they'll always be too small to vote for).

Again, I agree completely.
.