Comments Posted By Doug King
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 44 Comments
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
funny man - "as a Nation you are not just a bunch of individuals and that applies for Conservatives too." Fair enough and it's good that you keep reminding us. The challenge is understanding the scope and limits of our current national responsibilities with respect to other nations and to the past. It's a very complex question.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 21.08.2009 @ 15:58
I think people use at least two definitions of "racism": 1) One's personal attitudes towards individuals of another race. 2) Collective economic inequality between races. I think conservatives tend to favor definition #1, while many liberals favor definition #2.
I don't like #2 because it classifies everyone by race and goes against MLK's dream of judging individuals by the content of their character. As used by some liberals, #2 makes me, a white male, guilty by birth of most the world's problems, no matter what my attitude. Punish me enough times for things I did not do, and I will eventually start acting like the villain you think I am.
There's no question in my mind that many supporters and detractors of the President have racist (#1) motives, but I hope the numbers are relatively small. I also hope the culture war will not succeed in dividing us into tribes. Fortunately, I have the positive vision of MLK's dream, my own personal (non-white) friends, and numerous examples of non-white people I admire (e.g., Thomas Sowell).
To equate opposition to nationalized healthcare with racism is to use definition #2. It's as if "free" healthcare is supposed to atone for past slavery and oppression. If this is what the Democrats intend, they should be honest and come out and say it.
funny man mentioned the wrongs of Germany in WW II without mentioning how the extreme reparations levied on Germany after WW I led to those wrongs. Compulsory reparations -- however "just" -- do not necessarily lead to healing or peace.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 20.08.2009 @ 22:14
I too think Sarah Palin went too far by exaggerating and whipping up hysteria about the end-of-life provisions of the considered legislation. By the same logic, however, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have been equally shameful by blaming health insurers for organizing opposition.
Finding reasonable voices in the public debate on this issue has been difficult because both sides are dominated by demagogues.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 15.08.2009 @ 09:10
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." (Sherlock Homes, A Scandal in Bohemia) Holmes, of course, was talking about our current health care controversy. Pundits are adept at spinning theories in the absence of facts.
Emotions are running high because Democrats are trying to rush this legislation through as quickly as possible, before the public has time to understand and digest the facts. Even Senator Spector (D-PA) admits to not reading the entire bill due to lack of time. I such circumstances, I think public skepticism and resistance is justified.
I can understand a negative reactions by folks on either side of this controversy. Lacking real data, they are simply responding to what pundits (elected or unelected) are theorizing or saying.
There is no excuse, however, for leaders to make irresponsible and inflammatory comments in an effort to whip up their base. I'm disappointed by Palin's remarks. I'm not surprised by Pelosi's vacuous comments on swastikas. I agree with Rick that leaders on both sides are behaving badly. However, I lay the greater blame on the Democrat because they are the ones trying to rush the legislation through.
The public needs and deserves more time – many months -- to study, understand, and consider these proposals, which the President and other Democrats admit represents a fundamental and sweeping change to America’s health care system. Any attempt to short-circuit the public’s right to understand and comment on the facts can and should be resisted.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 9.08.2009 @ 23:17
JUST LIKE THE BIRTHERS ONLY WORSE: LIBERAL CONSPIRACIES ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM
Rick said:
Completely rational, and reasonable explanations for this outpouring of anger and activism are rejected by the left in favor of the elitist idea that ordinary citizens cannot think for themselves and must be told by lobbyists and corporate flaks to go out and demonstrate.
Well stated!
Comment Posted By Doug King On 6.08.2009 @ 17:48
SHOUTING DOWN THE OPPOSITION AT HEALTH CARE MEETINGS IS NOT THE ANSWER
Rick makes a good point -- mindless opposition can backfire by pushing fence-sitters over to the opposition.
On the other hand, loud protesting can embolden the silent majority to speak out.
I'm with the protesters on this one. I have no sympathy for campaign-as-moderate but govern-as-liberal politicians who don't bother to read legislation they enact. I'd wager these folks pay far more income tax than average and stand to loose a lot more from nationalized health-care. #21 said, "Find me a health care howler monkey who's not an over 40 white person." Why were age and race dragged into this argument, as if white people over 40 don't count?
Comment Posted By Doug King On 4.08.2009 @ 22:42
By the way, in my last post I admitted to dismissing books by Levin, Beck, and Paul because I expect them to be self-promoting. I might be wrong on this. I would be interested in knowing what Rick Moran and others recommend as primary reading material for conservatives (beyond the Declaration and US Constitution). If I were to make a recommendation, it would be "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 2.08.2009 @ 22:21
Nagarajan -- Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with #7 that India's gain will be our loss. Are you a US citizen, or have you considered becoming one?
Yes, I'm religious, and Yes, I believe human life begins at conception. I dont' buy the legal distinction between the born and the unborn. I have no opposition to birth control in the sense of preventing conception. Whatever I believe, I recognize citing theology to justify public policy has no place in America and will only backfire. Fellow Americans who do not share my religious views are right to insist that I persuade them on grounds of reason and civic value. Many fellow pro-lifers, however, eagerly cite scripture and it ultimately works to their detriment. I think the public case against abortion can and should be made on rational grounds. If a human fetus is not a human life, what other kind of life is it? The pain and carnage involved in aborting a fetus is perhaps the best case against it. I wonder, for example, how many of those who adamantly oppose waterboarding as torture feel the same way about abortion. I see our nation's tolerance of abortion much like the prior (legal) practice of slavery many years ago. I find it unjust and wrong. But I think exceptions can and should be made for rare cases of where the mother's life is in danger, for example. And no, I don't regard those who disagree with me as evil or stupid villains. But I digress.
Going back to my original question -- what do conservatives really stand for? What are our unifying principles of government, economy, and rights? I don't like where our government has been going lately. But it's one thing to be against the status quo, and another thing to be for an articulated alternative. What is the alternative? What is our manifesto? (I admit I have not read Mark Levin or Glenn Beck or Ron Paul because I do not take them very seriously.)
Comment Posted By Doug King On 2.08.2009 @ 21:33
sarc -- Thanks for the compliment. You sound like a reasonable person yourself.
The way forward is to unite conservatives and moderates behind good, politically viable ideas. The big question is, what are those ideas? As a fiscal and social conservative I have some notions, but I accept that I am one small fish in a very large ocean. I have to find others who more or less want the same things I do. There's an engineering adage that states, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Insisting on perfection in an imperfect world gets you no where.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 31.07.2009 @ 22:59
Thanks for pointing out Paul Ryan. I will keep my eye on him. But with or without articulate leaders, what do conservatives really stand for anyway?
Just as Ryan and others are reminding us to 'look before leaping' on health care, we conservative Republicans need to take our time figuring out priorities before shopping for new leaders.
When it became evident the Articles of Federation weren't working very well, the Founders took some time framing a new Constitution. That was followed by a lengthy, public debate on the proposal's merits (aka Federalist Papers). The Federalist Papers used pseudonyms in order to let people focus on the issues without getting distracted by the personalities or home states of the authors. Where is our 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers?
Personally, I am an economic and social conservative. I deplore the bailout approach adopted by Congress and the President, but I don't assume to know everything. I'd like to see more civil and candid discussion of fiscal policy and the role of individual responsibility. Is health care a right? Can and should government force people to get health insurance? Can we discuss such matters without calling each other names?
I am also ardently pro-life. Unfortunately, abortion has become a divisive issue for economic conservatives, just as slavery divided the Founders. Just as they gave us an imperfect solution in 1789 (accepting slavery as Constitutional), I think conservatives may have to make some difficult choices and compromises in order to build a viable coalition. Can present and potential policies on abortion be discussed without resorting to scripture or name calling?
In summary, conservative Republicans need to figure out what they stand for before scouting new talent.
Comment Posted By Doug King On 31.07.2009 @ 18:15
