Home › Blogs › chemjeff's blog ›

What Do Conservatives Want To Conserve?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 00:29
in

On another thread I was asked this question.  I thought it was important enough to merit its own blog entry.

Here was my response.

With regard to what I hope to conserve: I'm a big fan of Burke on this score.  I believe society is a fragile, delicate, interconnected web encapsulating the inherited wisdom of the customs and traditions of countless generations.  Its complexity is beyond human comprehension.  We mess with it only at our peril.  So I'm not in favor of "socially engineering" anything, because I don't think it's possible to do successfully.  What I want to conserve are the traditions and customs of the past that has led to the extraordinarily free and prosperous nation that we have (well, minus the socialist bits).  To the extent that customs and traditions are no longer compatible with modern values, then let's change our customs and traditions organically, via consensus, instead of having the imposed by judges.  So that's what I believe.

Timothy then responded:

Interesting. You present the development of history toward secular, pluralistic democracy as a conservative endeavor rather than a progressive endeavor. Are you suggesting that, only by slowing the wheels of progress, we've landed in the place we are at? I'm curious; do you think, were we to go back in time and pick out all of the crucial moments of change that have led us to this point, that conservatives would be the champions of those changes or the opponents of those changes, more often than not?

My guess is that you'd find conservative ideology, by its nature (including what you've listed here) would be opposed, more often than not. The changes that have led us to this "extraordinarily free and prosperous nation" are more likely to have been championed by those forces outside of conservative ideology. Right? Isn't that logically necessary?

My response:

Well I suppose it has to do with how you define "accomplishment".  I don't consider the establishment of "secular, pluralistic democracy" as an end unto itself.  I consider it a manifestation of a particular system of ordered liberty through which individuals can pursue their individual aspirations, and it's these accomplishments which I regard as having made this country prosperous.  So it's good that we have a large amount of individual liberty in this country, but it's only what people do with that liberty (i.e., achieve great things) which makes America truly great.  And it's because of the wise customs and traditions of the past that we, for the most part, use the liberty towards positive ends and not negative ones.  Have you ever wondered: why do people, for the most part, stand politely in line?  There's no law against linejumping.  Yet you almost never see it.  Why?

Plus, keep in mind that conservatives are not anti-progress.  We don't really want to stay in the 18th century forever.  There have been changes that have been championed by conservatives, e.g., women's suffrage.  These changes can be well reconciled with foundational principles of our republic.  Many conservatives today advocate for tremendous change: a radically different tax system, for instance.  What I as a conservative most object to is change that attempts to replace the wisdom of the customs and traditions of the past with the knowledge of smart experts.  I don't care how smart the experts are: the "fragile web" of society is beyond human comprehension, and we cannot tinker with it without expecting it  to get all messed up.  I believe it is also why many people perceive conservatives as being "anti-intellectual".  It's not that we hate smart people, it's that we don't think brains can replace wisdom or "common sense".

Furthermore, if we are going to engage in intellectual time-travel exercises, I also think that our current path of historical development is not the best of all possible outcomes.  Who knows, if abolitionists had not insisted so loudly on ending slavery, and we had never fought a Civil War, then legal slavery would likely have persisted longer.  But it would have come to an end eventually, and I think that if slavery had ended without having a shot fired, then we never would have had the racial problems we have had in this country since the end of slavery, because it would have happened organically and not by force, would have been more generally accepted by all.  Incidentally I feel the same way about Roe v. Wade.  Honestly, you pro-choicers should advocate for it to be overturned, because the undemocratic imposition of legal abortion is a non-trivial motivating force for pro-life protesters. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and abortion becomes a matter to be decided upon by the states, then eventually I think it will become not just democratically adopted everywhere, but also normalized, and in the end you will have won.  Which is, incidentally, exactly how women's suffrage was achieved in this country.  Judges didn't impose it; it was achieved by referenda and by Constitutional amendment (i.e., votes by representatives of the people).

So my answer to your last question is complex.  Even if conservatives had stood in the way of every single one of those changes (which I think is unlikely), then I don't know if things would have turned out worse, or better, or just merely different.  And we can never know.

What do the rest of the conservatives on this site think?  Am I right or am I way off base?

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

Alright...

Submitted by jesdynf on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 04:06.

I understand your question was directed towards People What Aren't Me, so I'm fine if you don't reply. But...

legal slavery would likely have persisted longer. But

Imagine discussing this with someone whose children you're selling. "Well... I mean, sure, Lincoln could've freed you and your little'uns, Toby. But... geez, that would be *awkward*. You might resent it. Best just to let things take their -- sure, but if you leave a mark on her you bought her -- sorry, where was I? Oh, right, the beauty of Constitutional amendments you're not going to get to vote on. Don't worry, things will work out."

This is pretty hard to let pass. Faux-libertarian you might think me, but eventually all libertarians need to deal with the fact that "States' Rights" carried to their final conclusion is the call for the Laws What Keeps Niggers In Their Place. I mean, states' rights is a great starting point, but there are *limits*.

Can I get a number? Just *how many* additional generations of humans do you think should've been bred and sold like beasts for this utopian harmony you're speaking of?

Now I know that you're not an evil madman. You don't actually believe this. But this is where "Yes, [A], *but* [B]" leads you. Some things aren't to be excused.

Leaders lead.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 07:46.

On the thread that spawned this diary I asked you a question which you ignored, so I'll repeat it here:

You oppose social engineering and in cases where our customs and traditions are outmoded, you want to change them "organically".  Here is a really brief list of  past instances of sudden change that flew in the face of customs and traditions: democracy, disestablishment, freedom of the press, the abolition of slavery, free public education, public professional police and fire services, women's suffrage, court-ordered de-segregation, laws against gender-based pay discrimination.

Do you deny these are accomplishments? I suppose your argument is that they all would have come about evenutally through organic change.

Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner - the three young men murdered in Mississippi in 1964 becasue they were trying to get black people to register to vote. I propose that if their ghosts were to visit you, they would argue the case rather differently than you.

And then we have what is becoming your signature - dithering:

Even if conservatives had stood in the way of every single one of those changes (which I think is unlikely), then I don't know if things would have turned out worse, or better, or just merely different.  And we can never know.

In a similar vein, you have also argued on this site within the last 10 days or so that we don't know that waterboarding is torture, that we can't ever know that there were no WMDs, becasue it cannot be proven, just like you can't prove there are unicorns.

I guess it comes down to this: leaders lead. History is made by individuals who have convictions and act on them, rather than sitting about fretting over pointless intellectual exercises.

Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not? - George Bernard Shaw

 And let me echo what the previous comment touches on - how long should minorities have to wait until the majority deigns to acknowledge their rights? In the case of women's suffrage, it took 72 years between the Seneca Falls convention and the ratification of the 19th Amendement.

 

 The problem I have found as

Submitted by In between on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 07:49.

 The problem I have found as of late is that republicans have believed in an ideology and perhaps not conservatism. This ideology does not trickle down. Yes, I believe in rugged individualism, however, the republicans of late paint tax cuts on their foreheads as the only answer. And yet you say you don't like centralism, you come right out and you want to control abortion-central planning. We have seen Bush with central planning with privatized social security accounts that would have cost 2 trillion dollars. We have seen central planning by going to Iraq, a war by convenience and not necessity. And free trade of all things. Yes, we need free trade, but does it mean we destroy the middle class, and the cities and states? 

Of course, your answer is with tax cuts-(more central planning) or at least an ideology that does not trickle down. The force of cheap labor is more powerful than tax cuts. We cannot compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians. Newsweek, had an article on North Korea, and they are not the closed society (business wise) that we think. Companies go there for cheap labor. My home town and other towns are being destroyed as companies are moving out for cheap labor, and small businesses are folding up. And yet you hear the republicans say they are for small business. So I don't get it. We are losing jobs and revenue. The town I live in is republican and they had to raise taxes. The whole Midwest has turned into an Appalachia, There is no right turns anymore.

We have seen years of tax cuts and yet we have plant closings and if you are lucky to get a job, it will pay less. And a lot of central planning still come from the republicans or from those on Wall Street. (like we are going to be an information society and we don't need manufacturing)True, the markets dictate the future, but these are the people that want "free trade" and when things go awry, they have no answer. Oh, if you are 50 or 60 years old and lose your job, your healthcare, your pension..... then go back to school. Yeah, some answer!

We have seen central planning by both the democrats and republicans and also by Alan Greenspan on targeting housing. Central planning with derivatives, and we tax payers end up paying the price one way or the other.

We have our jobs going overseas and our money going to Iraq, and our infrastructure in neglect. Yeah, we see the central planning.

The world changes and we have to change with it. The ideology you present is ignorance. We have to adapt to the times. We live in a globalized world and we are not alone anymore. 

Again, as I have said many times and what we have ignored through the years, is that the country needs to invest in its people, in its country, and in its future. Other countries do it, and they are succeeding. We sit by with failed ideology and say.....'well, that is your fault' at a time when no answers are given and when we have negative growth.

Conservative

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 10:42.

I agree with you post . I knew that someone would jump on the slavery example even though you clearly prefaced it as "an intellectual time travel exercise".

I would add that to me more and more, conservatism comes down to the central idea of personal responsibility.

It seems to me that more and more, liberals complain that the deck is stacked against the average American. The post by In is typical:

Again, as I have said many times and what we have ignored through the years, is that the country needs to invest in its people, in its country, and in its future. Other countries do it, and they are succeeding. We sit by with failed ideology and say.....'well, that is your fault' at a time when no answers are given and when we have negative growth.

Invest in its people . . .like free public education? Lots of money and loans available to go to college?

Education is the foundation of success in America. Anyone can get an education. And I mean a college education if they want to pursue it. My kids attend public schools in Texas. I know that to a lot of northern liberals that means they can count up to 20 if they include the toes on their webbed feet, and learn creationism in between prayer groups and Texas history classes. But actually my oldest daughter and many of her friends went on to college! As they now graduate, they are becoming engineers, architects, heading on to medical school, going for MBA's, becoming teachers, etc. None of them seemed to be exceptional students in an average public school system. But at some point they all realized that they were responsible for their own futures. I know I drill that into my kids.

Then you have the ones who barely made it through school, got pregnant, dropped out. The results are predictable. Bad choices have bad consequences.

Obviously there are circumstances beyond anyone's control. We can all come up with examples of that. And we need a reasonable safety net. But we are feeding an entitlement mentality. It is amazing how many people think that "the government" should bail them out of their situation that was created by their bad choices. We need to get back to the concept of personal responsibilty.

Slavery

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:18.

There is a reason why the abolution of slavery comes up in a discussion like this - becasue you can point to one man making one leadership decision, with the result being a radical change in our society that everyone agrees is for the better. You can and chemjeff can continue to poo-poo it as "intellectual time travel" - but by doing so you are highlighting how uncomfortably it sits with your thesis.

Hmmm

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:31.

The reason it came up is because chemjeff brought it up.

If you don't agree that it would have been better for people to come to the rational conclusion that slavery was bad and needed to be outlawed-as an organic movement and I would add at the same time as the Civil War-rather than a war that cost a million lives, then by all means knock yourself out. But it didn't as a matter of history. So it is an intellectual exercise at this point.

People had come to that conclusion - in 1789

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:29.

But Southern states insisted on keeping slavery, and only "agreed" to change when change was forced upon them.

Also, you should check your history - the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The South seceeded not because Lincoln was going to eliminate slavery, but becasue he was opposed to its expansion to the new states in the West.  The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't unitl 1863.

And, BTW - chemjeff brought it up because it was brought up to him on the original thread. He's trying to pre-empt the most obvious flaw in his reasoning by belittling a major historical fact - namely, one man ended slavery, consensus and custom be damned.

You make me laugh

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:51.

Also, you should check your history - the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The South seceeded not because Lincoln was going to eliminate slavery, but becasue he was opposed to its expansion to the new states in the West.  The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't unitl 1863.

There were many causes for the Civil War. But one would have to be a fool to think that slavery was not a causal issue.

Perhaps your pea brain should ask the question "why did the South secede"?

As you can see in comment above

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 13:24.

Quoting myself:

The South seceeded not because Lincoln was going to eliminate slavery, but becasue he was opposed to its expansion to the new states in the West.

What more would I have to do to make it clear that slavery - but not the abolition of slavery - was an issue? You see, when I say  "he was opposed to its expansion", the pronoun "its" refers to the noun "slavery" used earlier in the same sentence.

Those million lives? They were not shed to end slavery - they were shed to resolve the issue of whether or not the Southern states could withdraw from the Union.  And the reason they attempted to withdraw is Lincoln's election confirmed to them the unpleasant fact that were effectively reduced to a permanent minority.

Sigh.

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 05:43.

Sigh.

First off, "one man" did not end slavery.  It took years of agitation and consensus-building among abolitionists, and that little thing called the Union Army.  Let's give credit where credit is due, shall we?

Second: I told you my general philosophy on how change should occur.  I believe it should occur organically and gradually, because that is the type of change that is most durable.  That is the type of change that won't radically disrupt the fragile web of society, instead it will be incorporated correctly where it belongs.  Yes it took 72 years between the Senecal Falls convention and the adoption of the 19th amendment.  But this is change that happened without a shot being fired.  That is my ideal standard.  For historical reasons, it is not possible that every single social change can occur this way.  From a purely historical view, I'd say that something like the Civil War was inevitable in this country.  That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to advocate for Civil Wars as an ideal standard for bringing about change.

Third: you've mentioned twice now about your fondess for strong leaders imposing change "consensus and custom be damned".  Hypothetically speaking - if Obama could legalize gay marriage across the country with one stroke of his pen, regardless of whether it was the correct decision or not, would you be in favor of this method of instigating this change?  I would certainly hope not and it has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the gay marriage argument.

Finally, I ignored your original post because your words seemed to be full more of sanctimony than of intellectual curiosity, with leading and inflammatory questions like "how much longer would you keep people enslaved?".  And here too, you seem more intent on tearing down my arguments instead of offering constructive ones of your own.  Perhaps you could add something more worthwhile and describe how you think change should occur.  By strong leaders imposing their will?  By sheer majoritarianism?  By wise judges?

Please show me the inflamatory parts

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 07:45.

Here is my original post from the original thread in its entirety - please point out to me the inflammatory parts:

What about all the past instances of sudden change that flew in the face of customs and traditions? Such as democracy, disestablishment, freedom of the press, the abolition of slavery, free public education, public professional police and fire services, women's suffrage, court-ordered de-segregation, laws against gender-based pay discrimination - to name just a few. Would you turn your back on any of these?

 

un-serious

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 11:07.

Out of the entirety of what I wrote, the only thing you saw fit to respond to was this?

You can't be serious.

Okay, fine, I apologize.  I was wrong.  Nothing that you wrote was inflammatory.

Now could you please respond to the larger issues at hand?

Yes I chose that - for a reason.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 12:12.

Yes I chose that, because it gets right down to the heart of the matter - you are trying to waive away some of the most significant events in our nation's history becasue they don't  fit very well with your thesis. You have already attempted to dodge by ignoring the question, pretending the question is unfair ("imflammatory", "sanctimony"), by dismissing the question as a pointless exercise in time travel, and by your trademark dithering, as exemplified by this:

Even if conservatives had stood in the way of every single one of those changes (which I think is unlikely), then I don't know if things would have turned out worse, or better, or just merely different.  And we can never know.

Well, here is something we do know - Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill into law and then turned to his confidants and said he had just handed the entire South to the Republican Party for a generation. But he did it anyway, because your "organic and gradual change" was never going to result in African Americans being treated as anything other than second class citizens.

civil rights act

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 16:04.

But he did it anyway, because your "organic and gradual change" was never going to result in African Americans being treated as anything other than second class citizens.

Oh really?

Why did it take until 1964 for the Civil Rights Act to be passed?

Why didn't it happen in, say, 1904?

And then when you're done answering that one, maybe you can address some of my other points:

Perhaps you could add something more worthwhile and describe how you think change should occur.  By strong leaders imposing their will?  By sheer majoritarianism?  By wise judges?

 

Yes, really.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 16:39.

Yes, really.  You have reached incoherence. I guess you are implying that "your organic and gradual change" had built up its head of steam by 1964 - except fot the inconvenient fact encapsulated by LBJ's remark - the South was NOT ready for this change, so it had to be imposed upon them.

As for your second question - I answered it above. Leaders lead. Sometimes they are out in front of their troops, shouting "follow me" ; sometimes they are behind the trenches, saying "over the top at 6AM". But in both cases they are judging what is the right thing to do, what is the possible thing to do, and when to do it.

An excellant case in point is Abraham Lincoln.

I'm done.

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 18:25.

Okay, I have tried to be patient, but I give up.

The reason why the Civil Rights Act wasn't even proposed in 1905 was that not even the North was ready for equal rights at that time.  Only a very small minority was.  Sure they didn't enact Jim Crow laws but it was nothing that we today would consider "equality".  For instance, in most non-Southern states, not only was miscegenation illegal, it was considered gravely taboo.  So how did we get from 1905 to 1965?  What great leader imposed change on the North?  There wasn't one.  It was a gradual liberalization of attitudes that happened slowly and organically until, not only was equal rights an accepted tenet in the North, but a matter of national disgrace that it wasn't more widespread.

And you offer a hopelessly naive argument about how you think change should come about.  "Leaders lead."  Indeed they do!  Wow!  Thanks for pointing that one out!  But leaders are a product of their times as well.  Why didn't Lincoln, a great leader, propose full racial equality?  I'll give you a hint - it WASN'T because he thought it would be impractical.  It was because - gasp - he didn't believe in full racial equality himself!  How did we get from Constitution-author and slave-owner Jefferson, to President Obama?  THIS is the type of questions I'm exploring.

But you seem more interested in trying to tear down my argument instead of offering anything substantive of your own.  I've noticed this is a bit of habit of yours.  Whenever, say, someone suggests that maybe closing Gitmo is a bad idea, the first thing you do is throw that Petraeus quote in his face.  As if to suggest...that Petraeus is the unquestioned authority on Gitmo?  That no argument is meaningful in light of his four stars?  No, you just use it as a weapon with which to club conservatives.  You don't engage at the level of ideas, you engage at the level of typical, shallow Internet discourse, in which it's Left vs. Right and all is fair in love, war and politics.  You don't offer your own ideas because you don't want to open yourself up to attack.  You'd rather be on the attack because that is the real reason why you are here - for the sport of attacking conservative ideas.

So I'm just so done with you.  Forget it.  You are a waste of my time.  When you are ready to do something more than just trash and belittle my ideas, then we'll talk.

What is the point of discussing closing Gitmo

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 19:02.

What is the point of discussing closing Gitmo without including the opinions of the nation's top military men? If you've read what I've written then you've seen that I've made it clear that theirs is not the final word on anything - however, when it comes to question of national security and the security of our troops, their opinions are one hell of alot more valuable than those of Rush and Newt. And if anyone is spinning a theory about how keeping Gitmo open is good for the nation, they deserve to be challenged with those dissenting opinions and asked to reconcile the difference between them and their own.

Clearly you are very annoyed, but what is the point of discussing a theory about society without considering how society actually works, as evidenced by major examples from our history? You have made no attempt to deal seriously with the challenge I've presented you - you've just complained that I made the challenge.

The Prussian General Helmuth von Moltke famously said "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Well, on this site, it seems that few "ideas" survive contact with a few basic facts.

If you want to build a fact-free zone where these tender shoots can be nurtured, you've got a model - RedState. But sooner or later the ideas have to come out of the hothouse and into the real world.

 My complaint on personal

Submitted by In between on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:51.

 My complaint on personal responsibility is that you have people in Washington and on Wall Street that set policies. Policies that destroy the middle class. Free trade and the loss of jobs. Is it right for the government to dictate policy so that the middle class lose jobs? 

Since the Midwest has been mostly manufacturing, can you guess what jobs have been lost?And lost to those that are middle age. Add to that with globalization and you have to have the lowering of wages. A lot of Midwestern cities and states have relied on manufacturing and there is nothing else to replace that.

In any case, I am glad you have kids that are making it. There are some people that are not college material and vocational training will be the best for them. Some people also have no idea of what direction to go to. It is not their fault, it is just life. However, we can do a better job investing in our country, our people, and in the future. The past few years has seen our jobs go overseas, our money to Iraq, and the neglect of our infrastructure. 

Again, if you hold your hand high enough where you set policies, you will see a lot of chaos underneath that. 

 But at some point they all realized that they were responsible for their own futures. I know I drill that into my kids.

So do you think that the government should be responsible for misdirected ideologies? Like free trade? While we need free trade, does that mean we give up our jobs?

I am sure you live in a more diversified community. Some people are not that lucky. 

In what direction on personal responsibility a 50 or 60 year old should go to? Like jobs going overseas, less in healthcare, loss of pension, back to school in heaven knows what, a house he cannot sell in bad markets. After all who is going to buy a house in a factory town with no factories. And should he drive 30 or more miles a day to find a job that pays half of what he gets, with higher gas prices and wear and tear on the car? Maybe, welfare is a better deal. 

Yes, we are responsible for our future. Too bad others on Wall Street and in Washington who destroy certain areas of our economy see it differently. And through all the arrogance and ignorance you are going to get more socialism. 

 

 

Socilalism can't  work

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:18.

Socilalism can't  work without a productive segment of society to pay the freight for gonvernment redistribution. Cities have boom and bust years. They must diversify their economies to survive. They must create good business climates. Why are 1,000 people moving to Texas every week while 400 people leave California every week?

If jobs in my town dried up, I would move to a new town. I've followed jobs accross the southeast and southwest. four times. Its a pain. I don't like it. I've taken lower salaries to stay in the game.But I need to work to live. My parents moved for a job once and my wife's parents moved three times for jobs. And they were well past 50 when they moved.

So yes we can hold our government accountable, but we also have to take the lead in our own lives. We are in a recession now, but recessions end.

 

Socilalism can't  work

Submitted by In between on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:59.

Socilalism can't  work without a productive segment of society to pay the freight for gonvernment redistribution. Cities have boom and bust years. They must diversify their economies to survive. They must create good business climates. Why are 1,000 people moving to Texas every week while 400 people leave California every week?

I can't speak for California. Texas has gained from a president and vice-president, from oil, and from Halliburton with Iraq. The free trade may not have hit Texas as much as it did in the Midwest. Yes, we have recessions, but the jobs lost due to globalization is permanent. Again, how do you sell a house or hundreds of houses in a town that has no jobs? While people need to move on, all I have heard for 8 years that free trade is good. So I listened all those years and rolled my eyes. So why should anyone believe in a republican? Tax cuts alone does not solve the problems. But that is what we lived by. We didn't need the jobs according to the republicans and some democrats. Well, here we are, with thousands of people without jobs. With our factories closed. With cities and states going broke. Yes, we passed from one job to another in the past, and that even looks dimmer today. Again, you have free trade which is cheap labor. Our wages have to come down to the level of third world countries. That is the reality of a globalized world. Now the people on Wall Street and in Washington will not say it, but that's the reality.

I think the outcome if we invested in our country-subsidies or otherwise, invested in mandatory vocational training (according to the Hudson Institute), and by investing in the future with energy independence and other areas to create jobs would have been a better policy than just free trade, tax cuts, and a needless war. We are where we are in a total mess.

personal responsibility

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 05:49.

Lonestar Bill,

I completely agree with you, personal responsibility was a big oversight on my part.  Thanks for pointing that out.  And kudos on your kids for going to college and being so successful.  Did they go to UT?

In Between,

I guess I would respond to you by simply noting that the way to avoid being trapped in a particular place that runs out of opportunities is to live a modest life.  If I don't have a lot of debt, if I don't buy too much house that I can't really afford, if I buy used cars instead of new ones and I pay cash for them instead of financing them for 7(!) years, if I save money by not going out to eat every night and build up an emergency fund and a nest egg for retirement, then if bad times strike I have the flexibility to leave and find opportunities elsewhere.  The problem lies when people build up empires of lifestyle, become dependent on their current circumstances to continue financing that lifestyle, and then when the job layoff comes or the unexpected medical expence arrives, the result is chaos.  It doesn't have to be that way.

 I guess I am not getting

Submitted by In between on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 06:39.

 I guess I am not getting through with this. Obviously it comes down to personal responsibility. However, we had a president for 8 years (and Clinton signed agreements) that "free trade is good, WHILE AMERICANS LOST THEIR JOBS. You correct problems along the way, and you don't destroy cities and states. And if you are going to have free trade, then you need to find something that will replace those jobs. Now what is it? Any widget can be made in China. The pros on Wall Street says this will be an information society and that we do not need manufacturing jobs. Now, how dumb is that?

Why not tell the mayor of Las Vegas that they don't need casinos!

Again, if you are going to destroy a certain sector, then you need to replace that with something. You still have to invest in your people, your country, and in the future. 

You can reach as high as possible with your hand with your ideology, but below that there are problems. And this is where republicans fail. You want to set your ideology, but you don't deal with the problems at hand. Of course, you call it a central government and I call it managing the economy. Now, facts are facts. The factories are closed. And what kind of answer do you have for people who lost their jobs of stupid policies out of Washington. People need jobs, cities and states need revenue. And yet Washington takes our money and our jobs. So I do not get it. Just when are we going to do things for the good of the country, by the republicans.

And this won't be just blue collar workers, it will be white collar also. The Discovery Channel showed a factory of 17,000 in China, we cannot compete with that unless we lower our hourly wages in the U.S. That is not progress. It is the destruction of the middle class.

So you can sit with your tax cuts and answer to nothing, but the problems still exist. And all I am asking in this day of globalization, on what are we going to do about it. Are we going to bury our head in the sand just like General Motors? Or do we do something about it?

Other countries have ramped up education, vocational training, investing in the future. We sit around with tax cuts and we are being run over with globalization. There are cities destroyed by globalization, it is bigger than tax cuts and personal responsibility. You need to deal with the world and you cannot ignore the lost jobs.

Again, the people in the Midwest voted democrat because of these problems and until republicans realize that, then there is no reason to vote for a republican. You lost the electoral vote, the reason sits in the Midwest.

Not UT

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 08:48.

Actually my oldest daughter just graduated with a degree in Politics from a small Catholic school on the DC area. Hopefully she will do well long term. She's wants to go to law school after taking a year off.