Free marketers vs. Christians

Good point SVS.

I don't feel like realigning. I've always prefered to take my chances in the free market.

I suspect that this person mistakes charity and self-donation for socialism. I can do a lot more charity if I had my FICA back right now.>

I don't think socialist is a scare word. It's an accurate description, and yes, Rod, it means roughly what you say it means. That IS the commonsense definition.

We're already a moderately socialist nation--we have a minimum wage, workplace safety regulations, child labor laws, income redistribution programs, environmental regulations, and so on. Using the term socialism for all this doesn't obscure, unless we've become so politically and economically ignorant that we no longer understand the usual name for this approach.

I also don't think the author mistakes charity for socialism. Rod clearly doesn't mean charity when he says that some Republican-voting Christians "swallow their concerns" on economic issues--spending tax monies is not charity.

Rod is correct that at least a great many Christians (and a great many Americans) are basically socialists--I recently had a well-off, conservative Christian, Republican-voting and basically free-market oriented friend tell me that he thinks most government intervention in the economy is harmful, "though of course we need a safety net." Odd that he assumed it must be a state function to provide this net--that would be a core tenet of socialism in almost any formulation. So American politics generally range from the strongly socialist, moderately secularist Democrats to the moderate to mildly socialst, mildly religious Republicans. Truly libertarian economic views rarely get any airing, and have basically no public support.

Conservative "pro-business" policies are most often just socialism with more loopholes and exceptions. Supposed de-regulation rarely indicates any actual diminution in the level of government regulation, rather an increase but with many special exemptions allowing some flexibility. Else, why would a "free trade" agreement be hundreds of pages long?>

I was a part of the economy, the macro-economy, for nearly 20 years. I had the rare position of seeing it from the inside. While I could never claim expertise or offer reliable anaylses or predictions, a couple of things are clear to me.

A totally free capitalist market is what we had when we had slavery, when we had the robber barons and company towns, and when we had corporate private armies intimidating any worker or workers even thinking about unionizing. Free capitalist markets are inherently unstable, unequal and chaotic. Take a close look at our stock markets, and you'll see arbitrary and social-conscience regulations created as a direct result of the '29 crash. Even with those controls, we still found enough loophole room for the leveraged buyout with subsequent sacking of company assets, something that also caused some rule changes. We still found enough room for the Enron debacle. People need to wake up and smell the coffee: left to themselves, sharks will eat you, no matter how much they depend on you for clean water to swim in.

Community is no longer what we want it to be, or see it to be. The days of the "safety net" of the extended family and community insularity are completely gone. Government didn't quash that, it simply saw a vacuum and moved in to occupy it. Social Security, like public education and welfare, is a direct result of the switch from agrarian to industrial. It was necessary, in a way that no one who didn't live it in its original form can fully understand.>

I've watched the political landscape for over 3 decades now, and listened to the stories of my elders, and I cannot give very much credibility to the media for their portrayals. In fact, media portrayals are thinly-veiled support for the propaganda of whatever party is being covered at the moment. Your mileage may vary.

The Democrats have been, and from my POV still are welcoming to all comers. This open door is a passive thing, not given to bells, whistles and choirs of angels singing the praises of the people inside the door. The Republicans, OTOH, have acquired their religion-friendly image from two sources: being adopted by the Moral Majority as the appropriate target for takeover and promotion of their values, and aggressive marketing... dare I say very similar to the proselytizing styles of some MM honchos who shall currently remain unnamed. ;)

Seriously, and respectfully, the discomfort and dissatisfaction of some of the conservative supporters of the Republicans need to look a bit deeper beyond the "failed to deliver" aspect of their upset: you were hoodwinked, in the grandest tradition of free market advertising, and I suggest you take a close look at the leadership of the party and decide if they ever really deserved your loyalty.

I hasten to add, speaking to those conservatives who might now be offended by my descriptions, that I respect your commitment to and belief in the ideals and principles we so often discuss here and in other forums. I am not attacking that, I am attacking the perception that the aforementioned leadership shares even a little of your level of commitment and belief, and the proof is out there right now.

Don't replace your party, replace its leaders. Think about it.>

Franklin Evans wrote:

"The days of the "safety net" of the extended family and community insularity are completely gone. Government didn't quash that, it simply saw a vacuum and moved in to occupy it."

Not so. There are many examples of government quashing private initiative in the area of welfare. In both England and the U.S. private, community, and Church efforts to take care of the poor and indigent were either made illegal through new laws and regulations or the government simply took over the job, doing it badly and shrinking liberty in the process.

Where state power moves in, private and local liberty is pushed out.

The dichotomy between "socialism" and the "free market" is a false one. In addition, the definitions of these terms have been stretched to ridiculous extremes, allowing for this kind of thinking:

"A totally free capitalist market is what we had when we had slavery, when we had the robber barons and company towns, and when we had corporate private armies intimidating any worker or workers even thinking about unionizing. Free capitalist markets are inherently unstable, unequal and chaotic."

News flash: if a person is forced to part with his labor (as in slavery), then you don't have a free market.

We should be thinking more in terms of localism, free trade among non-coerced individuals, the elimination of business subsidies. All this chatter about safety nets is meaningless; the pestiforous influence of the state in all our private affairs runs counter to any reasonable Christian world-view.

Conservative Christians in this country are, by and large, free market supporters. But what they mean by free markets is their right to property ownership and no onerous taxes. They don't mean huge give-aways to the corperate sector. But, like everyone else, they have their private concerns and they go along to get along, focusing every four years on who will be more pro-life, protect our shores, and not nominate the idiotic judges that spew forth from the Democratic Party.

Yes, I know, Bush has done a horrible job with most of the above. I'm not a Republican. But we're not moving into the Democratic Party. Not a chance.>

FE says: The Democrats have been, and from my POV still are welcoming to all comers.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is true any longer. The DP leadership has made it clear through their actions and words that they do not respect, and in fact actively oppose, the concerns of the sacralist.

I just finished reading a biography of Harry Truman (a very impressive man, by the way). While reading it I was impressed with the Democratic Party of his time, and I would have been an active supporter. The DP has really changed since that time....>

Todd, my answer to you is the same I gave in another combox: the leadership is not the DP, it's their version of their personal agendas and expediencies. The DP is made up of people, and if you aren't talking to people, then you are letting the leaders dictate to you.

My father wanted to name me after Truman. If he'd gotten his way, I'd be signing myself H.T. Evans. :) My father, a trained warrior in the Old World sense, admired Truman very much for his ability to make the hard decisions and to stand up and take the consequences... something that is missing from nearly all of our leadership nowadays, IMO.

IMO, if Truman were alive today, he'd still see many familiar things in his party. He'd also see what I see, stagnation and willful blindness in some areas. I have to agree that the Party per se is not so welcoming as it might have been, but that's a far cry from the anti-religion criticism that is much more in service to propaganda than to the truth. I suppose I should have written that it is much more welcoming than its critics make it out to be.>

Tom, it's just not true that the Democratic Party is "welcome to all comers." Was it welcoming to the late Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-labor Democrat who wasn't allowed to speak at the party's 1992 convention because he's pro-life? (Even the Republicans let pro-choicers speak). I know that's just one example, but it's a telling one to people on my side of the fence. Like Todd, I'd probably be a Truman Democrat, but there's no real place for people with my social and religious values in the Democratic Party. I hope that changes, just so voters like me can have a choice. What do you make of the finding from that poll of delegates to both parties' conventions that found Democratic delegates despise religious conservatives more than Republican delegates despise abortionists? You can't tell me that Democrats as a party (as distinct from individuals) are welcoming to religious folks. It's just not true.>

Last question was from me, Todd.>

Bob Casey Jr. is running against Rick Santorum for the Senate. He calls himself "pro-life." I will probably vote for him.

His pro-life position makes me nervous because I don't know what he means by that. Does he mean that he would support legislation against plan B and a woman's right to abort at the very early stages of pregnancy? Or, does he mean that he would support legislation that favors spouse and parental notification and later stage abortions with exceptions?

I don't want the DP to swing to the side of being pro-life in support of the embryo to the point that it's anti-life in support of the mother.>

You have to dip back to abortion and Casey to demonize Democrats for not being open? But what's the option. The Republican party has no African Americans and three Latinos (two who are anti-Castro Cubans) in its delegation in Congress. Throw in Bobby Jindal, you have a whopping four non-white people in Congress.

If Congressional representation reflects the party, what does that say about the Republicans? And how many pro-choice Republicans are in party leadership? How many times have pro-choice Republicans been allowed to give speeches about abortion at Republican conventions?

Maybe religious conservatives (as opposed to religious moderates and progressives) don't feel comfortable in the Democratic party because they have the big house all to themselves in the GOP.>

They have the big house all to themselves, but they still rely on a large number of religiously moderate/not religious capitalist voters to keep control of the Congress and the Executive Branch.

That's why religious conservatives are frustrated with the GOP. The GOP must consider the wants of the non/less religously conservative voters to keep control. When a party caters to the people on the fringe, they end up being booted out of office.

Robertson, Perkins, and Dobson might be the vocal branch of the party, but they must be on the fringe. I'm assuming that they're on the fringe because when I share my thoughts of what Christians in the GOP look like, people say that I'm generalizing and stereotyping and don't know what I'm talking about.>

Rod, I'm unpersuaded that the Dems don't like religion from the anecdote that someone didn't get to give a speech at a convention 15 years ago. Can you do better than that?

What's more, as I pointed out above, that "pro-choice = anti-religion" argument is every bit as sensible as the "anti-Affirmative Action = racism" argument.>

The government doesn't educate people. People in communities educate children. The government gives them parameters, but there's no law saying that they can't exceed the parameters.

That's really the problem with public education. I don't honestly believe that I could find a better private school system in the country that does a better job at educating my children than they receive at this public school. We've moved around a lot, and we always look for a district that has little poverty and low crime. What you get with that is a school district that has large parental involvement(a lot of stay-at-home moms), children follow the rules in the classrooms so that there's little disruption, low teacher/pupil ratios, and much organization.

People keep blaming the government for bad public school systems, but it's takes a lot of time, involvement, and money to have a good system. We won't see a significant closing of the gap between schools in poorer districts vs wealthier districts until we can close the gaps that are causing the disparity.>

Once again, the problem with the "anti-religious" proclamation to is some degree is truly that democrats really desire to keep their religiousity "private." It seems that the republicans want "public" religiosity. I'm not saying one way is better, I'm just saying.>

Good point, Tovart. I don't know one Christian who's a Democrat who thinks that it's a priority to put religious teachings or rituals into the public schools. That's not to say that God is absent from my children's public school. Children aren't kept from expressing themselves. Last year, at the talent show, a little girl sang a song about Jesus. I think it was a country song with "Jesus in the back seat?" And, I see the presence of God in the public schools daily when my children are treated lovingly and respectfully by their teachers and the children are expected to treat each other respectfully.>

me, again. :)AGHHHHHH!>

Thuloid,

I don't dispute your perspective, in general, but there are valid alternatives to describing some of the conditions you name.

Frex, I'd have written "...laws that protect slave owners from the competition of industrial efficiency". We like to think that the Civil War was fought for the sake of abolition, but in reality it was a trade and manufacturing war, with each side feeling threatened by the other's economy. Don't get me wrong, abolition was a Very Good Thing, but it was the cause celebre that motivated the idealists (and the propagandists).

I'd also replace "government intervention on their behalf" with "corrupt officials getting rich on the robber barons' coattails". Credit mobilier, the treatment of workers (particularly the Chinese), and of course the slaughter of natives for rights of way couldn't have gone on for very long without government complicity... and to their credit, it did produce the only presidential impeachment.

Anyway, while I'd personally call some modern legislative activity "criminal", I don't quite agree that one can put today's "pro-business" atmosphere in the same category as that which prevailed in the day.>

If religion friendly means knuckling under to the dogma of those who want me to be friendly, and having no say whatsoever from my beliefs, then I guess I'm just going to have to conceded that I am anti-religion.

In the meantime, here, handcuff me. I plead guilty for 40 million deaths (and counting).

I mean it. Every doctor who has every performed any sort of abortion, for any reason, and every ob/gyn who has prescribed hormone therapy, whether for birth control or not, should be strung up and hung. I'm guilty by association, as is every man whose wife/mate/gf has had an abortion, as is every woman who has had an abortion or accompanied a friend to have one. Let's go. Line us up and shoot us.

After all, God says we are guilty. What more do you need?]]> 2006-09-01T20:52:51-05:00 tovart 66.146.13.58

Let's also remember that HST was the only world leader to ever use nuclear weapons (twice against a civilian population at that).

I always think that criticism of HST for using the atomic bomb on Japan -- and the inevitable observation that it was used on a civilian population -- is overblown and misplaced. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo in the spring of 1945 than died at either Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also the example of the bombing of Dresden.

The Allies had already made the decision to bomb cities, and were doing so, long before Truman authorized the use of nukes. In the context of WWII, the use of the atomic bomb was just a means of doing with one big bomb what the Allies were already doing with lots of little incendiary bombs. So the decision to use the atomic bomb was really just a technological one, not a moral one. The moral line had already been crossed long before.>

Franlin--

"Anyway, while I'd personally call some modern legislative activity "criminal", I don't quite agree that one can put today's "pro-business" atmosphere in the same category as that which prevailed in the day."

If you mean morally, I agree. I just meant that it was an earlier form of the same in the sense that it is government action on behalf of business (providing advantages to certain parties and not to others)--the methods are thankfully somewhat less brutal these days.>

David,

I don't know if you got the point of my post but the gist is that if HST were president now, using the criteria that people here make to claim that GWB is the "worst president in history," they would probably think the same thing about HST.

HST had the benefit of a nation that believed in itself even when in the opposition party and a strong machine-based (very immigrant Catholic in fact) political base that gave him the benefit of the doubt during tough times and didn't flap in the breeze.>

What about Korea which was the main point of my comments.>

I've taken up JohnT on his invitation to take our schools tangent to another location. Everyone is welcome to participate.

It's located here.

:)>

We are back to square one.

Only 26% in the latest Pew poll said the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion. This is a fact.

I can see none of you accept this fact, from all your personal experience spin claiming Dems are o-so-friendly towards religion (susan, watsy, tovart, etc.). Remember, the first step to fix the problem is to accept that there is a problem.

Reality is a hard thing. But try. Buck up. Take the red pill. Dare to be a different Democrat. Get out. Talk to people. Find that other 74%. It's true, they are out there. Somewhere...>

With due respect to the perspectives of such as M_David and Michael Blowhard, who no doubt can cite personal contact with the people they describe, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Define friendly. Do it explicitly and with no room for interpretation. Do that, write it here, show how the 26-74 split accurately measures that definition, and I will immediately concede your point.

In the meantime, my personal contacts, my readings of the "spokespeople" from both sides, indicate to me a mixture of sour grapes and spin. (Gee, sounds like we should be getting some wine soon, eh?) I have heard, in almost as many words, that not having a Christian in charge imposing every Christian value without dissent is the definition of unfriendly.

I'm a reasonable guy. Show me the rational proof, and I'll come around.>

I don't find it hard to believe that Democrats are viewed as hostile to "religious" people. There is a lot of distrust of religious people in the Democratic party because of the excesses of the religious right. When I tell me liberal friends that I am very religious, I have to do put it in context since the view religious people as the extremists we see in the GOP. Unquestionably, the religious right has made it difficult to be religious in America.

The question is how can Democrats be more open to religious people without selling out their values. There are connections that can be made and Democrats need to be open to people of faith.

OTOH, the Democrats will likely never be open to someone like Rod, who doesn't see beyond being pro-life. It's unlikelly anything the Democrats could do would make someone like Rod happy, especially given his willingness to gut his supposed values when pulling the lever for a party that backs torture, war, and animosity towards the poor.

If the Democrats change enough to please Rod, Democrats would become Republicans.>

Sorry, M_David, but that does not let you off the hook. My query is both reasonable and valid, and if you know nothing about statistical analysis and sociology, then you will know nothing from polls.

The question you quote, which I'm sure is the question they used, is ambiguous. It doesn't define the operant terms, so it doesn't actually measure the underlying motivations for the answers given.

But that's okay. Assuming the margin of error is small for the sample, it does measure reasonably well the attitudes of people. I can accept that.

But until unambiguous data is collected, then I'll just have to keep going with what I see, what I read, and the unambiguously expressed opinions of people whose objectivity I trust... which, unfortunately for any continuance of this discussion, does not include you.>

Susan,
The democrats should follow the lead of Jim Wallace.>