Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R - Harrumphing Old White Dudes) sounded a trifle unhappy the other day. In the wake of President Obama's inspiring inaugural address, he mournfully declared, "The era of liberalism is back."
For once in my life, I actually agree with the Good Senator. But I don't feel nearly as downhearted.
Recent polls reveal national sentiments on a host of issues of widespread concern:
- No Social Security cuts: 77%
- No Medicare cuts: 79%
- No military spending cuts: 33% (only!)
(Source: National Journal via The Ed Show [MSNBC])
Additional polling data indicated majority support for legalized gay marriage, and widespread belief (a 2-to-1 ratio) that climate change is man-made.
On the other hand, periodic surveys fielded by the Gallup Organization seem to have arrived at a different conclusion. But instead of focusing on specific issues, the Gallup interviewers asked their respondents how they perceived themselves politically: as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The latest sample, taken about a year ago, revealed the following data:
- Conservative 37%
- Moderate 40%
- Liberal 23%.
Something for the conservatives to crow about, right? Not so fast! Many folks, particularly among those of us with some mileage on our anatomical odometers, are skittish about identifying ourselves as liberals. Historically, at least in some quarters, a self-identified liberal would be roundly condemned: "After all, we're soft on Communism/terrorism (depending on the era) and 'welfare queens', we're bleeding-hearts (guilty as charged), and we're uncouth, unwashed boors who never blow our noses!"
So we prefer to identify ourselves, at least to the pollsters, as "moderates". (Admittedly, it's just a theory on my part, but I believe that the issue-based polls give it some credence). Conservatives, on the other hand, haven't traditionally faced the same degree of condemnation or ridicule. So they're much less likely to seek out an alternative label.
Considering where folks stand on the issues, I tend to feel that a solid majority of self-identified moderates are, in their hearts, good old-fashioned liberals, endowed with compassion and empathy.
So, come on out of the closet, people. It's okay to be a liberal! Honest!
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Who is Really Freer?
There are times when I can't resist questioning the reasoning of folks who express their concern over the role of government in our society, especially in regard to what is considered by some as "government overreach".
In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy and strong national support for tougher firearms laws, gun dealers appear to be doing a land-office business. Why? Because some gun-freaks are thoroughly convinced that "The Big Bad Gummint" is gonna trash the Second Amendment and leave those self-described fine, upstanding citizens at the mercy of "them". (If my memory serves me, wasn't the Second Amendment drafted at a time when we depended on a "well-regulated militia"?) And who's "them" anyway? Anyone who doesn't look or think like they do maybe?
In reality, public concern seems to be largely over the ready availability of assault weapons and the ammo required to make them work. But still, many have voiced equal unease over the availability of more conventional firearms (not hunting rifles), as well as the lack of oversight regarding their distribution.
The gun-freaks and other anti-government zealots may lament over the perceived restriction of their freedoms, but how about those of us who feel that our freedoms may be limited by the lack of government involvement?
This argument extends well beyond the issue of gun ownership. (Still, it would be nice for folks to be able to walk around freely without fear of getting whacked between the eyes. Our Canadian neighbors and "all them Euro-Socialists" don't seem tormented by that concern).
Citizens of the other industrialized nations may shoulder a greater tax burden than we do, but I rarely hear of them pissin' and moanin' about it. Some critics may contemptuously refer to a strong government as a "nanny state", but hey, a lot of folks learn to love their nannies.
Consider the tradeoffs: universal health care and free or affordable education among them. Who's really freer? The recent state-side college grad burdened by a debt so crushing that she'll need to hock her eye-teeth to pay it off? Or the German student who benefits from a quality education without being assessed anything more than affordable copays? How about the independent entrepreneur (the kind of folk we like to romanticize) who had a lousy year and had to drop his health insurance --- and then gets laid low by a serious illness and loses everything he worked his entire life for? How free is he likely to feel? Just across our northern border, a similar entrepreneur --- as awful as his sickness might make him feel --- is at least unburdened financially by the cost of his treatment. So once again, who's really freer?
Like beauty, I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy and strong national support for tougher firearms laws, gun dealers appear to be doing a land-office business. Why? Because some gun-freaks are thoroughly convinced that "The Big Bad Gummint" is gonna trash the Second Amendment and leave those self-described fine, upstanding citizens at the mercy of "them". (If my memory serves me, wasn't the Second Amendment drafted at a time when we depended on a "well-regulated militia"?) And who's "them" anyway? Anyone who doesn't look or think like they do maybe?
In reality, public concern seems to be largely over the ready availability of assault weapons and the ammo required to make them work. But still, many have voiced equal unease over the availability of more conventional firearms (not hunting rifles), as well as the lack of oversight regarding their distribution.
The gun-freaks and other anti-government zealots may lament over the perceived restriction of their freedoms, but how about those of us who feel that our freedoms may be limited by the lack of government involvement?
This argument extends well beyond the issue of gun ownership. (Still, it would be nice for folks to be able to walk around freely without fear of getting whacked between the eyes. Our Canadian neighbors and "all them Euro-Socialists" don't seem tormented by that concern).
Citizens of the other industrialized nations may shoulder a greater tax burden than we do, but I rarely hear of them pissin' and moanin' about it. Some critics may contemptuously refer to a strong government as a "nanny state", but hey, a lot of folks learn to love their nannies.
Consider the tradeoffs: universal health care and free or affordable education among them. Who's really freer? The recent state-side college grad burdened by a debt so crushing that she'll need to hock her eye-teeth to pay it off? Or the German student who benefits from a quality education without being assessed anything more than affordable copays? How about the independent entrepreneur (the kind of folk we like to romanticize) who had a lousy year and had to drop his health insurance --- and then gets laid low by a serious illness and loses everything he worked his entire life for? How free is he likely to feel? Just across our northern border, a similar entrepreneur --- as awful as his sickness might make him feel --- is at least unburdened financially by the cost of his treatment. So once again, who's really freer?
Like beauty, I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
We've Dodged a Bullet: At Least for Now
Well, it looks as if enough members of both houses of Congress had the presence of mind to support some much-needed legislation: enough to keep us from diving over the fiscal cliff --- or stumbling over the fiscal curb.
Since then, some of the recent rhetoric from congressional Republicans has seemed a tad unsettling. When asked about the need to raise the debt limit once again, House Majority Leader John Boehner declared that "everything comes at a price". Sounds awfully sinister.
In the meantime, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is insisting that "discussion of further tax increases is now over. From now on the entire focus will be on spending cuts." However, this time around President Obama and congressional Democrats seem determined to stand their ground, asserting among other things, that raising the debt limit will not be negotiable.
The Democrats have already managed to accomplish restoration of the top federal income tax bracket to 39.6%, as it was during most of Bill Clinton's tenure; perhaps just a baby step, but no small feat considering the historical relentlessness of the Republicans' determination to see Obama fail.
In regard to raising much needed revenue, there's still a lot that can be done: for instance, closing statutory loopholes that enable corporate heavy-hitters such as General Electric to not only pay zero federal income tax but receive ample refunds as well. Elimination of generous subsidies for the oil industry and corporate agriculture are other prime examples.
Obama and his colleagues need to remain steadfast and not allow themselves to be blackmailed by their congressional adversaries, as happened in 2011. Last November, the voters sent Congress a compelling message.
Hopefully, those adversaries have been chastened. I guess in due time we'll know.
Since then, some of the recent rhetoric from congressional Republicans has seemed a tad unsettling. When asked about the need to raise the debt limit once again, House Majority Leader John Boehner declared that "everything comes at a price". Sounds awfully sinister.
In the meantime, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is insisting that "discussion of further tax increases is now over. From now on the entire focus will be on spending cuts." However, this time around President Obama and congressional Democrats seem determined to stand their ground, asserting among other things, that raising the debt limit will not be negotiable.
The Democrats have already managed to accomplish restoration of the top federal income tax bracket to 39.6%, as it was during most of Bill Clinton's tenure; perhaps just a baby step, but no small feat considering the historical relentlessness of the Republicans' determination to see Obama fail.
In regard to raising much needed revenue, there's still a lot that can be done: for instance, closing statutory loopholes that enable corporate heavy-hitters such as General Electric to not only pay zero federal income tax but receive ample refunds as well. Elimination of generous subsidies for the oil industry and corporate agriculture are other prime examples.
Obama and his colleagues need to remain steadfast and not allow themselves to be blackmailed by their congressional adversaries, as happened in 2011. Last November, the voters sent Congress a compelling message.
Hopefully, those adversaries have been chastened. I guess in due time we'll know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)