Nor am I a conservative or a libertarian, a socialist, a communist, or an espouser of free radicals. These are labels, I am do not like being labeled. Because by picking a label, you now have to become all that that label thinks of itself and what everyone else thinks about you. In one sense, you must now stop thinking for yourself and I for one will never stop thinking for myself. I can sense that many reading this are saying, I’m liberal and I think for myself! Or I’m conservative and I think for myself! And you might. But the label you have chosen has certain beliefs that personally I may or may not agree with at this time. I like to tthink that my thinking is evolving and changing as I grow older and get some elder wisdom.
I happen to have some beliefs that do not fit into liberal or conservative. I am not for a smaller government or for a large government. I am for right sized government. I am not for no regulations for businesses nor am I for a lot of regulations to manage the businesses. I am for enough, but not too much. I am not for government to cut all spending nor am I for spending wildly, but to spend where it is necessary. Oh and this means then no earmarks. That is not spending as necessary, but making sure your constituents (and donors) get a little more than everyone else. I can not see the benefit of lobbyists. The job of informing politicians of their issues is one thing. Junkets, money, campaign contributions, etc isn’t teaching about the issues, it is bribery. I do not like debt, either to a bank or to a lobbyist..
I am for helping people who are in trouble. Like kids, sometimes you have to let them fall down, dust them off and have that talk about why what they did was harmful. But I don’t agree with letting them fall down over and over. Nor am I for putting them in a bubble. Here I’m thinking about the people who made very bad loan decisions as well as people who don’t want to get off welfare. People will make mistakes, but assuming someone will always be there to help you out is silly. So if you gamble your house and life on a chance to make it really big and loose, you should take it and deal with it. There shouldn’t be a bail out for stupidity.
I am for education. We cannot grow without a well-educated population. But again, our teachers are underpaid in the most part and everyone says we need more teachers. But try and get a teaching job. The jobs are held by under performing teachers who have union backing and tenure. As well as the bureaucracy that keeps the teachers, administrators and other staff insulated from reality.
I am for unions. But not for unions who do nothing for the workers except line their pockets with dues and are only the managers of another resource for the company, labor. I don’t mind union workers getting good wages, but there is a point where they are a second tier privileged class behind the over priced management. However, when workers are being exploited by management, then it is time to organize.
I am for business. But businesses forget that they are nothing without workers. And not workers in India, but the workers that live here. The people who buy the products. No one is worth making millions of dollars, unless you have some risk involved. And a golden parachute isn’t risking anything. And I am for right sized regulation. Hey, I don’t want you pouring your waste water into my drinking water, but I don’t think we need regulation to make sure you have enough left handed wrenches in case you hire some left handed workers.
I am for banks. But banks need to understand the risks and expect like all of us that if you take risks and fail, you will need to close. If I risked everything on a business venture and it failed, I would have to file for bankruptcy and start over with nothing. So management of risk is important to me and to the banks.
I don't consider myself that smart. There are people who will tell me to read so-and-so. I won't. Those are their ideas, not mine. They are trying to define themselves by fitting to the labels. I don't. My label is me.
I am no longer a Liberal
- Rich H's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Your self-appraisal has
Your self-appraisal has elicited some supprising responses. Perception is everything. I think I read it pretty much the way you wrote it. I had been thinking along the same lines and have been putting together a few thoughts that seemed to fit. I think some of the commenters missed the point, accepting a label means accepting all that label means. Perceptions that "liberals" are unwilling to make hard choices and want to take care of everyone, cost be danged, are more inclusive of freeloading activities than many "liberals would agree with. The same kind of mis-perception exists for conservatives as big business, free market, save the babies and pray regularly for salvation from homosexual marriage. Enough! Below is my rant.
I’ve watched our nation develop and mature, our government change as the country’s attitudes change (usually provoked by economics and/or morality), and the consequent changes in our everyday lives in response to the government’s changes. I am a somewhat older conservative and find myself without agreement with either of the political parties. Although having only two political parties has had a major role in shaping the path the country has followed, I believe it is time to dispense with them. They are no longer aligned with the majority of the people and don’t or won’t make serious efforts to address the nation’s critical issues.
Congress needs to be replaced completely. About the only Senator I would vote to keep would be Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I certainly won’t keep any of my Congressional Delegation. They are all so devoted to Republican Party talking points that they really can’t make an intelligent statement outside those points (which are pretty much limited to No!, No! and No!). We’re sure not going to get anything out of those monosyllable idiots. The Democrats want to address a number of critical issues but can’t get past their own partisan stupidity, holding their own party’s legislative centerpiece hostage to get more money for their constituents and then racing to Wall Street to hold fundraising events at the same time they are voting on reforms for the Wall Street folks that just about cratered our economy. I would list each of them specifically, but I don’t have that much space. Our political parties offer almost nothing I believe in. They have bankrupted and slimed the political process in this country. (How about election campaigns based on published statements of beliefs and intent to vote on issues.)
I like transparency for everyone and all activities involved in governing the country. I believe I should know more about what my government is doing than it knows about what I’m doing. The Republican Party and so-called conservatives can’t seem to stop sticking their nose in everybody’s tents. If they would pay attention to their own house and leave me to take care of mine, we’d all be a lot better off. They can’t seem to give the government enough power to poke into our lives and arrest people without warrants or due process. How stupid are they that they can’t seem to realize that should they fall out of favor, those same unconstitutional procedures can be used against them. I didn’t like it when the secret courts were established back in the 70’s and I don’t like anything about the so-called Patriot ACT. I haven’t found anything in the Constitution that says anyone has an inalienable right to tell me how to live my life. This approach offers no additional security and only enables the whiny, snot-dragging idiots who think they are protecting their little world from the rest of the world.
I also believe in ethical relationships and business transactions. Business today particularly large business is more about finding a legal or even quasi-legal way to screw you out of your money or take control of it so they can make money off your money without giving you any of the income. “Fiduciary duty” is something that no longer exists. Ethics and morals are not acceptable for good business any longer. Many in both political parties have neither and don’t believe either is a necessity for being elected. This stupid idea of totally free markets can only be exceeded in stupidity by what has to be the companion idea of a totally free society. People will not accept a society where businesses can screw individuals over at will and ignore them. The free-marketeers think the business will succumb if it doesn’t treat customers properly. I think eventually customers will decide to take action on their own rather than wait for the demise of the offending business. (Heartbreaker with your .44)
I also believe in taking a sensible businesslike approach to solving the country’s problems. Now, what has Congress done for us over the past 20 or so years in solving our problems? We’ve had widespread Medicare fraud that has almost rendered the program insolvent not to mention several other frauds (housing and MMS and others) that have been going on for years. Congress has done nothing to stop the fraud. Fire Them! For a good portion of the last century we led the world in developing new technologies. We have a serious cost and security problem related to our use of energy. Do we have a comprehensive energy policy that will take advantage of our resources and technological ability to lead the rest of the world into energy sources of the future? No, Congress can’t seem to do what needs to be done. Fire Them! Laws were passed that put our financial security and economic well-being at risk. Did Congress (or even the people proposing the changes) have any idea of what impact those changes were going to have on our economy? Absolutely not! Those changes almost brought our economy and the World’s economy to collapse. Did Congress take action to prevent it happening again? Their response was to make the fewest changes possible. The reason the bill is so large is all the exclusions it provides and not for all the regulation it provides. The approach is to tell the regulators to keep things under control, pretty much the same groups that have regulated and will regulate according to the sense they get from Congress (strong regulation or weak). Has Congress addressed two of the most critical issues of the day, health care and immigration? Partially, Healthcare was tackled with such a mishmash of partisan politics and hostage taking that it will in no way address the cost issues. I’ve had forty years of health insurance and am ready for another way. I don’t need insurance, I need good healthcare. What a bunch thieving weasels. Congress, Fire Them!
My Congressman believes BP ought to be left alone. I believe we ought to make it open season on BP along the Gulf Coast. The idea of assaulting someone or a company sounds a little harsh, but so does the idea of somebody using unseen trickery to screw me out of my money. I have no interest in businesses being allowed to take advantage of me. I follow the Golden Rule. I don’t screw over others intentionally and I don’t expect it to happen to me. I expect government to maintain a level playing field where the best services, products and pricing will prevail, not a field where the ability to hide information and screw over your customers, competitors and suppliers prevails. Why should businesses be allowed to do things individuals can’t? Why are businesses allowed to hide income and legally evade income taxes? Why are businesses allowed to move their operations out of the country and still be allowed to sell products or operate here? If they want to go elsewhere, then they don’t need to do business here. We have subverted the individual to business so much that I think it’s time to take back our independence. Vote Congress out!
No to Tom Coburn, yes to Lindsey Graham
"About the only Senator I would vote to keep would be Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I certainly won’t keep any of my Congressional Delegation. They are all so devoted to Republican Party talking points that they really can’t make an intelligent statement outside those points (which are pretty much limited to No!, No! and No!). We’re sure not going to get anything out of those monosyllable idiots."
I watched most of the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan and Coburn's behavior was atrocious. He spent most of his time lecturing her and trying to get her to say she'd be willing to overturn precedent to right what obviously he felt were bad court decisions in the past. At one point Leahy, the chairman, was trying to decide if they should go a little longer or stop and come back the next day. When Coburn said he had a few more questions, Leahy told him if it was just a few questions that was fine, but if it was another 10 speech about what he believes that wasn't so fine.
Coburn voted against Kagan, and this is what he has to say about her on his web site:
“By her own words, Elena Kagan will violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in. Kagan believes wrongly-decided Supreme Court precedents trump the original intent of our founders. With Kagan on the Court, Congress and the executive branch may succeed at sweeping away whatever limitations remain on its power to micromanage the decisions of states and individuals,” Dr. Coburn said.
“During her testimony Kagan indicated she would support the big government policies that created our $13 trillion debt and the welfare state that is threatening to bankrupt our country. The Court needs to force Congress to pull back from this precipice, not give it another reason to push our economy over the edge,” Dr. Coburn said.
“Finally, it was extraordinary to hear a Supreme Court nominee decline to endorse the concept of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence that is the basis of our Constitution. Refusing to acknowledge natural or God-given rights undermines our entire system of government. Without natural law, so-called ‘progressives’ would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator,” Dr. Coburn said.
The first two paragraphs are him spinning what she said until its unrecognizable. She basically said she would respect precedent, which every nominee says and in most cases is what Supreme Court justices should do. I think it goes without saying that when Coburn refers to "wrongly-decided Supreme Court precedents" he's referring to decisions with which he disagrees. So basically he's unhappy because she wouldn't commit to overturning decisions he thinks were wrong.
As for the third paragraph, I'm really not that enamored by politicians suggesting that God is the source of rights.
Coburn's just another ultraconservative who sees things through the lens of his ideology. I'd probably vote for Lassie over Coburn.
As for other Republicans, there are a few with some sense and integrity about them. I've been very impressed with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He's also on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I was very impressed with the way he conducted himself, whereas I thought Coburn and Grassley made fools of themselves.
No to Tom Coburn and Yes to
No to Tom Coburn and Yes to Lindsey Graham. Unfortunately I missed most of the Kagan hearings, but I won't argue your observations. Having watched most of the previous round of hearings, Sotomayor, I know Graham can be very reasonable and charming, but he can turn around and be a Republican on a dime. I'm sure you've noted some of Graham's statements that leave one wondering, was that his real personal opinion or was that a Republican talking point? Of course, it's the same thing with Coburn. I see and listen to him on TV and he generally comes across as realizing Congress is dysfunctional and changes need to be made. However when he gets to bible thumping and tort reform, he's as dysfunctional as the rest of them. It is a shame that it is so difficult to find one member of Congress that isn't either a talking points bobble-head zombie or so full of it, the only color they can wear is brown.
If Coffee Party means fallin asleep...I'm out!
The FACT is that the Right is all about Corporate Power!
With VERY few exceptions.
I can't separate Truth from Politics!
(I have a nut in my thick heed called truth)
Look at our Senate!
And unions are bad?
OHHH, the "Union Bosses".
You fools bought the lie!
Yeah, it's the Unions fault!
(meaning...how DARE working people want a living wage!)
The BOSS gets billions...but it's the working man/woman that's the problem.
You been re-educated right well, Boy-o!
Ruminations
"I don't consider myself that smart. There are people who will tell me to read so-and-so. I won't. Those are their ideas, not mine."
I agree with your assessment. Smart people who can think for themselves read a variety of sources because they understand that any reasonable input can enhance their understanding of an issue. You, on the other hand, seem to take some pride in rejecting opportunities to increase your understanding, foolishly believing this somehow makes you a more independent thinker. It does not. It makes you an ignorant thinker.
Yes, what you read is other people's ideas. But that isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. You read this person's ideas and that person's ideas and someone else's ideas, and then you think about what they had to say. If it increases your understanding, you win. If you find their ideas lacking, reasoning out why they're lacking is also a helpful exercise. The point is to build on the ideas of others, not adopt them mindlessly.
Are you so arrogant as to believe you can't learn anything from anyone else? Or do you just lack faith in your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in what you read?
In point of fact, the reason humans have progressed as far as they have is that they can learn from the experiences and wisdom of others. Would you want a doctor who refused to read anyone else's theories about disease? Would you want a financial advisor who doesn't read articles about finance and the economy? Do you have any idea how many discoveries are made by people who based their work on the work and theories of other people? And yet you proudly reject that whole paradigm, believing you can become more enlightened about an issue by insulating yourself from what others have contemplated and learned. I confess this seems irrational to me.
I read your little narcissistic diatribe when you first posted it. You refer to yourself in the first person 43 times, not counting the title. "I" this and "I" that, it's all about you, thrown out into the cyber void for total strangers to read almost as if you're trying to convince yourself that your political beliefs are okay. I think your views are fine, I just don't see the point in dumping them all out here in a list like this as if you're trying to convince us all of something. Instead of starting a discussion to talk about you, why not just share your views in discussions when they're relevant to the issue being discussed?
The point of the piece is not about me
And if you read that, well, perhaps you should try taking off the blinders of liberalism or conservativism and re-read it. If I used the word "I" too much, well perhaps it is about what I am thinking. I didn't write it about what you are thinking.
As for reading other materials, you didn't read the passage correctly. I don't read what other people tell me to read. I read voraciously. I read from the left and right. But I do not like when people tell me to read some book that touched their lives because what they want me to do is change my views to theirs.
As for putting this comment out there. This is an opinion piece. I can't remember if I posted something like this and Annabel asked me to post it as a blog or it was just an opinion. If you want to post your opinion, talk to the Coffee Party.
I Consider You Smart
I consider you smart for the very thought that you think independently of the spin and lies that dominate politics. Your kind is just what CP-USA is built on!
Truth lean neither left nor right,
or is it always at the center left or center right.
It is that gold thread that weaves
throughout the fabric of life!
Keep the faith,
Robbert