"Long term government assistance does absolutely lead to apathy and complacency. Unfortunately, we can't be responsible for paying the way for people who refuse to help themselves. I thought you progressives and atheists were big believers in Darwin? Is it not Darwin through his theory of evolution that states that evolution and life is based on the survival of the fittest? Those who refuse to evolve will not survive."

Hmm, you seem to be making the same mistake that people in the 19th century made, confusing Darwins observations regarding biology and genetics with human society. What is often called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism did indeed come about because of a mistaken attempt by many Progressives included but not limited solely to them, to apply some of the ideas that Darwin broached in entirely too broad a framework. Also once again with rhetoric like "...paying the way for people who refuse to help themselves." I would call for Conservatives to at least be honest and stop trying to convince us that somehow their rampant judgementalism is in any way shape or form the least bit "compassionate".

"The only one's to blame for the corporatism we have today is you progressives. It was Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson - both huge progressives - that actually got in bed with the corporations, unions, created the Fed, and instituted the progressive tax system. Your policies established almost 100 years ago led to where we are now. By refusing to allow free-market capitalism to work - we now have private/public partnerships in which the government gets to pick and choose the winners (i.e., TARP; the S&L bailouts of the 80's, etc.) - including the government/union partnership during the 30's and 40's in which the government decided which auto makers would survive."

The only ones? Allow me to set aside delicate verbiage for a moment and simply say. Bullshit!

This is yet another example of Conservative rhetoric that seeks to demonize Progressives for choices that are either wrong in fact, or that become wrong in light of the unforeseen consequences that they wrought.

The fault quite simply belongs to Corporatists who have always been with us. Once upon a time for all of their failings and Progressives disagreements with much of their beliefs Conservatism was at least an honest system because it rejected rampant Corporatism as much as Progressivism did. But over time Conservatives became increasingly Corporatist, until the two seem largely indistinguishable. Sadly Liberals have been going down the same path ever since Clinton.

"In a true free-market system where government stays out of the way - the consumers decide who the winners and losers are and the consumers will drive those greedy businesses out of business. The Fed and the government allowed this recession to happen by looking the other way because of record tax revenues coming in as a result of the behind the scene REPO's, CDO's, and other financial instruments that were being created by the banks. Global economies are all tied together now because of progressive policies of the 1960's. None of this would have been able to occur under a free-market system where there is no influence by government and a Federal reserve."

"I don't like this corporatist system either. The solution is to dissolve the Fed and to get government out of the business of doing business with private industry."

Frankly so long as there was regulation in place to deal with actually illegal actions by corporations, I would be interested to see the actualization of what you discuss.
For example putting tainted peanuts in products and then selling them is an issue that goes beyond the realm of market forces. It is a criminal act and should be dealt with as such.

As for the dissolution of the Fed, I do not know that I am for that, however a serious restriction of their powers and also giving a great deal more oversight to the people are certainly needed steps. The fed operates practically autonamously and that is something that I believe is deeply troubling to both Libertarians and Progressives. Sadly it seems that the Corporations have such a stranglehold on our politics and policies that both of us are being more and more relegated to the sidelines.

Thanks for the great discussion.

"Agreed - the problem is that for almost 100 years the progressives have been running around our Constitution. There have been no amendments that allow the redistribution of wealth through all these entitlement programs. Activist progressive judges have made decisions and interpretations that have been counter to the intent of the constitution and we are only now getting back to overturning those decisions - specifically the decisions that went against the 2nd, 10th, and 14th amendments."

Um to me the whole "redistribution of wealth" ie taxes is pretty well spelled out in, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

As for activist judges, well let's be fair and call it like it is. Both sides seek to advance their agenda through the judiciary. After all Corporatist activist judges in the Supreme Court recently handed corporations a major victory by upholding and expanding corporate "personhood".

"I too grew up poor - but - through self-determination, character, and an ambition to provide my family what I was unable to have when I was a kid - I got myself out of it. I paid for my own college - I had to work three jobs to support my family and pay for school. I got my degree and started moving up the corporate ladder. I never stopped going to school. As you know, I am now working on my Ph.D. and I'm still paying for it myself. I never want to put my family in the situation I was in growing up. I believe that some are born with such traits and character and values are instilled through your upbringing and experiences."

"Again - it is not up to the government to force those who are instilled with the ambition to pay for those who are less ambitious."

Now you see this is where I have a massive problem with the Right. This presumption that anyone who is in a bad situation long term is only in that situation because they are lazy. I have known people who worked themselves into a grave and for one reason or another were not quite able to make a go of it. To deny people help to have a basic dignified life based on factors that are largely intangible like "ambition" is frankly to me distasteful. If that is how Conservatives want to proceed so be it, but why not be honest and put a halt to the "we're compassionate too" rhetoric. Refusing a person help because you have judged them fall short of some standard that you have set is not compassion in any way shape or form.

(continued)

"You're right - I didn't see any humor in your lead-in."

Fair enough. After all humor is a visceral and personal thing in many cases. I'm sure there are those who found the Obama as a witch doctor pic offensive.

"Why do you hate this country so much that you're willing to rewrite history so? That was a different era - and - this entire globe and the various lands/countries we have were all builit, divided, and developed through wars, conquests, and enslavement. Our piece of this rock is no exception. However, the last 150 years of this country evolved through those traits I mentioned. I don't discount the first 200 years - it was a rocky beginning - but so it went everywhere else as well."

Hmm. You know this is what I find interesting about those on the Right. When one of you attempts to proclaim the greatness of America, seeking to downplay or ignore the faults that are just as much a part of it's history and fabric as the positive aspects, and someone comes along and counters your rhetoric then the accusations of "hating America" start flying. I rewrote nothing. I spoke a very narrow specific truth to counter your very narrow specific truth. You are absolutely right in what you say above. In fact if you look at the way countries operated in the past, the very idea of making treaty with a subjugated people was a new one. Did we fuck it up royally in the way we went about dishonoring those treaties? Yes but even the attempt represented a change from the old ways. To me the good and the bad are entirely too interwoven to look at one without looking at the other. That is why I do not refute the founders, but I also do not deify them. They were men and had some incredible ideas, and some horrifying ideas. As are we all.

"As do we Conservatives. However, we believe that it is society that must help take care of those through charity and "hand ups" not handouts and government forced wealth redistribution. It is not the responsibility of government to force charity. We have a basic agreement - it's the means of providing the assistance to the needy that we disagree on."

You are absolutely right. As I've said before the problem I have with charities is the potential for inconsistency. Because there is not solid framework ensuring that the help they offer will be there when times go from merely hard to damn near impossible, it is a very real possibility that, the "hand up" will not be available when it is needed most. Further more I refute the rhetoric that insists that if it comes from the Government then it is a "hand out" and if it comes from private sources it is a "hand up". It is this all or nothing sort of thinking that led to welfare reform to mean simply creating term limitations and income based terminations without any concern for an individuals situation. Whereas true welfare reform would be about stage one helping a person to have a decent living situation until they were able to return to work. Stage two would be about helping them with incidentals unless/until there job paid enough for them to be able to take care of them theirself. Now you would still of course have those that would choose to game the system. But that's life. Most people would use it in the way intended to get their life back on track and barring an unforeseen catastrophe down the road would once off of public assistance stay off and be glad to be off.

"Agree - except for the "responsible for us" part. The government has no responsibility to the people other than providing roads, post offices, the general welfare of the population, and the creation and funding of a military. Outside of that - we as individuals are responsible for ourselves."

Yes and there are those who would decry even the things that you mention above. (I freely admit that they are nutjobs that most Libertarians denounce but the point is that there will always be those that think Government does too much no matter how little and those who think it does too little no matter how much it is actually doing.) Here though is where you get into philosophical differences. I myself and most Progressives hold the "No man is an island" point of view. Therefore we believe that there is a greater responsibility than merely to ourselves.

(continued)

"All social mandates are unconstitutional and bring apathy to the human spirit. You kill ambition when you provide handouts."

Well as I've said elsewhere the Constitution was never meant to be a straight jacket to keep our society in government living in some 18th century Libertarian fantasy. Rather it is a dynamic and elastic document. It is meant to be interpreted and re-interpreted, and when run up against the limit of legitimate interpretation, if the public good calls for it, it is meant to be amended. The founders in no way considered it a document of timeless and unchangeable wisdom. They were not attempting the Governmental bible.

As for bringing apathy to the human spirit and killing ambition? Well I'll tell you what does that. Growing up dirt poor and getting treated to a second rate education because of it kills ambition. Having to choose between killing yourself trying to work and pay for some kind of higher education, or go so deeply into debt you might never make it out if you can't find a good paying job after you're through, or just giving up and taking subsistence employment because that's all that's available to you, That brings apathy to the human spirit.

There was a time I'll grant you where the Libertarian rhetoric was if not totally true, at least more true. That time has long since passed for most people. As this country continues it's trek to becoming a Corporatist Fiduciary Democracy those with the money make the rules and they make them to benefit themselves. No need to worry about fairness, no need to worry about justice. Keep them apathetic, and ignorant, and breed 'em like rabbits.

"The vast majority of this country does not want your socialist policies and don't need to be told what to do."

You are absolutely right. You know what they want? They want a fair days pay for a days work. They want to know that if they get sick they will be able to see a doctor and have the medicine and procedures they need. They want to be able to provide a good life for their children and see them educated. And you are right that most of them would prefer to do it under their own steam. But in selling out this country to the Corporations you have made it all but impossible. Because you lot found even the most common sense regulation in service of the people distasteful Corporations have been allowed to grow and grow virtually unchecked. Every time some kind of meaningful reform is passed then right along behind comes the Conservatives to repeal it, or weaken it until it's meaningless. Meanwhile the American dream has been priced out of range of what most of us can afford. And then we're fed a bunch of Right Wing horseshit to try and make us feel ashamed for daring to think we deserve more. We failed in a rigged game, and so surely it must be our fault.

I can guarantee you that it is the Corporatists that will be run out of this country eventually. Or after they've consumed every last resource of any kind we have to offer they'll lose interest and leave. But think carefully before you decide to throw your lot in with our Corporate Masters. They do not love you, they do not care about your rugged individualism, or your cherished values. You are nothing more than an asset to them, and when they have obtained the most they can from your labor they will cast you aside. After all we're all much cheaper to replace than repair, much easier to discard than to worry about once we are no longer productive. Good luck making a go of it in the United States Of Wal-Mart my friend.

Hey Bobo,

*L* First of all it seems like an awfully humorless response to a bit of rhetorical humor from someone who thinks the Obama as a witch doctor pic is the height of hilarity.

"1. Republicans want the same thing as Democrats - power. The only reason Republicans are opposing anything right now is because it is not they who created it. 2. Republicans are not Conservatives. Conservatives can be Republican or Democrats. 3. Republicans don't want to kill Medicare, Medicaid, and health care reform. True, real American, Conservatives do. "

All fair enough points as far as they go. Although sadly the Democrats when out of power are nowhere near as obstructionist as the Republicans. If they had been perhaps they could have kept us out of a needless long term conflict in Iraq, and from seeing the near total destruction of our countries moral infrastructure as men with no regards for the rights of its citizens, nor for the rule of law ran their own little private empire.

"This country was founded on individualism, autonomy, self-reliability, and self-responsibility."

Well actually it was founded on land theft, genocide and slavery. The former is largely the rhetoric used to justify the latter.

"Progressives like yourself don't believe man has the ability to take care of himself and therefore must have a protector - namely - big government."

No actually what Progressives like myself believe is that when events and circumstances out pace, out strip, and out last people's abilities to care for themselves it is immoral to simply stand back and let them freeze, and starve, and sicken, and die.

We also believe that Government is not some foreign invader come from distant shores. Rather it is us. Shaped by us, responsible for us, and responsive to us. It is quite literally "Out of many, One!" (continued)

Paul,

Thank you. Sometimes I really do feel like an overly cynical curmudgeon so it's nice to hear from other people that I'm maybe not nuts. ;-)

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Bobo,

While you are not a wacko, what might seem obvious to you, is not always felt to be so to others. Today's article going up a little later will talk about why Progressives have and continued to reject the Conservative philosophy. I look forward to reading your comments.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Ish,

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Brother Donald,

Nope. Completely different. You see a person with a medical license is clearly living outside of their mothers body, therefore they are a person. So to end their existence is murder. A baby until it is outside of its mothers body is not an individual, but is part of the mother therefore it is subject to her personal autonomy or choice as we commonly call it.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

J,

Thank you. That means a lot to me as this series has been one I really put my all into (not that I exactly phone in the other ones)

BTW since I have you here and I'm lazy, I wanted to tell you how much I love your new entrecard ad. It's very eye catching and with tax time upon us is sure to get a lot of people's attention.

Take care and thanks for reading and commenting.