I do not believe that the Democrats are totally corrupt or evil. I do however believe that taking money involutarally from people through taxea and using it to buy votes through social programs that benefit select groups is indeed corrupt. Calling this theft and election fraud scheme compassion is dishonest and might thus qualify as evil. Nonetheless, I accept that most Democrats do believe in their Party's mission. They are again for the most part honestly convinced that they are acting in the interest of the poor and oppressed. I only hope that a civil discussion may one day occur without Hilter being brought into it. I am sure most Democrats despise dictators as much as most Republicans. We do have much common ground, but we have no agreement whatsoever on how to reach our shared goals.

Dean, reading your final graf on partisanship I was reminded of an interesting foreign policy book by Alexander Wendt from a couple years back called Social Theory of International Politics. Most of what Wendt had to say is not germane to your post, but his conception of how agents in the international system consider one another seems applicable to American domestic politics as well.

He theorizes that one's relationships can be characterized as either Hobbesian/enemy, Lockean/rival, or Kantian/friend. When you speak of the value of partisanship, I think of the Lockean rather than Hobbesian configuration, Burke's old adage that "our antagonist is our helper." I think this would be the ideal relationship among partisans left and right, but I also feel that reality is far closer to the Hobbesian/enemy status.

When we regard someone as our enemy rather than merely as a rival (or opponent), we're far more willing to engage in take no prisoners-type behavior, and the possibility for refining ideas in response to criticism is lost.

There's another negative aspect to conceiving of others as enemies rather than mere rivals -- it allows us to project all sorts of fanciful conceits onto the other side. I submit that the same kind of conspiracy-mongering that drives extreme partisans left and right can be found among anti-Semites who weave tales of fantastically influential Jewry and among Marxists who point to a supremely powerful bourgeosie. Simply put, they feel powerless unless they can ascribe to their opponents a kind of supreme power which puts everything in perspective.

Both parties are thoroughly corrupt and evil, and if only everyone would listen to me...

</third-party activist>

Dean:

Another cure for this affliction is to come across someone who is thoughtful, intelligent, obviously knows as much or more about an issue you feel passionately about, is obviously a decent human being, and yet still disagrees with you. When you're confronted with such a person--and I hope you are--you generally have two choices: react in anger and loathing, or stop and get over your bad self.

Yes, precisely. Given almost any issue I can name, I've found that there are intelligent people of good will who come down on the opposite side of that issue from my own position.

It seems to me that how a person deals with this insight is one of the most important indicators of his maturity. People can disagree, and disagree passionately, without demonizing the "other side."

When I run across someone who says, "I don't see how any intelligent person could take such-and-such side of that issue"... when I encounter someone who believes that all the folks in the "other camp" must be either a knave or a fool, either evil or crazy, either "bad" or "mad"... I usually conclude that I'm dealing with someone who needs to grow up. If he also habitually reacts-- as you put it-- "in anger and loathing," even to someone on the other side who is manifestly a decent and intelligent person-- then I conclude that he has issues.

Unfortunately, for better or for worse, this kind of attitude is far from rare. I've read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer I don't know how many times-- Hoffer had plenty of common sense, and insight into how this mindset works.

I recall some foundation back in the 90's did an experiment in randomocracy. In exchange for a week's vacation in I think San Antonio they gathered a scientifically representative sample of American voters to study and then vote on issues like taxes, gun control, abortion, education, etc. They were polled on the issues before and after listening to advocates on opposite sides of each issue. The outcome showed a definite shift toward the liberal point of view.
This non-paritsan assembly became more generous toward the poor, prefered stonger restrictions on firearms, and saw taxation as a neccesary cost of providing the stable society needed for success in private enterprise.
I have long believed that Congress does not and probably cannot truly represent the best interests of most Americans as long as use popular elections to select legislators. If we just conscripted men and women randomly to act as legislators then there would be a better chance that a consensus could be reach on what a more perfect union would be like. It is the need for the money to buy television time that has made democracy in a America the grandest of illusions.
Eliminate the election and we will eliminate the corruption.

In exchange for a week's vacation in I think San Antonio they gathered a scientifically representative sample of American voters to study and then vote on issues like taxes, gun control, abortion, education, etc.

And who determined the curriculum? "...some foundation back in the 90's..."

It's possible that your conclusion (random conscription instead of election for representatives) could have some merit, though I can also see problems with the idea. But lose this "my side is the right side" thing if you actually want your idea to be considered seriously.

Yes, I find this story more than a little fishy, and would like to see sources, and methodology. It smacks of the "most people really agree with me!" hubris I've talked about.

I read an interesting theory related to this somewhere, unfortunately I cannot remember the source...

In any case, the researcher studied a number of Indian villages, and concluded that the villages in which the least violence between those of different religions occurred (IIRC, between Hindus and Muslims) were the villages that had established political organizations such as unions and political parties. Ideological views spanned religious affilation, bridging the gap between the two cultures.

I suppose it’s a tried-and-true-method for assaulting an idea one doesn’t much like, to distort it by oversimplification and imbue it with inappropriate moral judgments that were never implied. When Dean Esmay claims that I must believe, “that one of America's two major parties is thoroughly corrupt and evil…[and] If only--if only!--the people would learn the truth, this evil party would be cast from power forever,” because I suggested that the Republican party tends to advance the interests of an elite minority of the electorate and therefore must be particularly dishonest in public to garner public support, he creates the straw man that helps him avoid a reasoned argument.

I suggested no such moral dimension nor did I speak with the sort of absolutism that would indicate the zealotry that Mr. Esmay presumes. Both political parties are guilty of over presenting the interests of thoroughly self-sufficient Americans and many Democratic-supported policies secretly favor moneyed interests that support them in office. What I suggested was that a complete and honest reading of the factual record of neo-conservative statements and policy-making, as practiced predominately by the Republicans over the past generation, demonstrates (for one thing) an intentionally hidden agenda to starve the government of revenue to limit it’s ability to act in the public interest as a counterweight to corporate (elite) power. Further, the fact that this over-arching agenda is not widely discussed by mainstream media or generally understood by the public (and may actually be dismissed as “arrogant” partisanship), is the product of a bias in favor of the idea of non-partisanship that works against truthful and enlightening journalism.

The two obvious ironies here are: 1) as a rhetorical device, using character attack and moral imperative to deflect reasoned debate is the hallmark of neo-conservative policy “argument” and 2) Mr. Esmay’s counter-argument isn’t an argument at all; it’s a technique for avoiding the real debate [who's interests do Republicans generally represent and how accurately is that portrayed by them and the mainstream media] which suggests fear or ignorance of the facts and both reflects and is the exact product of “non-partisan journalism”.

The first problem with your statement is the notion that there's anything secret about anything you just said. Yet all of that is discussed openly by many Republicans, including elected ones, and is hardly a secret.

The second, more profound, problem is that many reasonable people believe that these exact policies which you think are "secret" are actually in the best interests of the poor, and everyone else. Failure to acknowledge that a reasoned, thoughtful person, even one who isn't wealthy, might actually think these are good ideas, shows the kind of arrogance I've described.

I make $30,000 a year, Steve. I'm doing okay; in the past I've lived on welfare. I think a lot of the policies you ascribe in such negative terms are in my best interests. Others I might not agree with, but I can still see a rational, decent person supporting them.

If you honestly believe the Republican agenda is evil, that's fine. It's your right. You might want to consider the possibility that people who don't agree with you aren't all a bunch of ignorant, easily-fooled sheep, however.

I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that you are responding to me. But I never said there was anything secret about what I said – I’m not that brilliant or original. I said Republicans were dishonest with the public about the basic rationales behind their policies. Please quote an elected Republican who has publicly stated that neo-conservative tax policy is designed to incapacitate government to do any thing but transfer taxpayer dollars to multinational corporations and their owners. I can quote volumes of Republican rhetoric justifying ill-conceived tax cuts for just about every other reason than to “starve the beast”. I also haven’t (until now) described ANY policies and it is you that are injecting the pejorative “evil” into the discussion.

Obviously, there are many rational, decent persons who believe that policies are sound. First of all, they haven’t got much of a basis in reality from opinion makers in the room; Tom Brokow and Brit Hume don’t tell them that Republican rhetoric and neo-conservative policy are almost entirely disconnected. That would mean making a strong statement of qualitative difference between the parties – something from which mainstream journalists’ recoil. Besides, who wouldn’t want to believe that they deserved a tax cut and that all the hard choices to deal with finite fossil fuel supplies, environmental degradation, globalization issues, boomer retirement, etc. could be put off indefinitely.

Right now, Democrat and Republican base supporters’ hold strong and strongly opposing viewpoints – I would say perceptions of reality. They could both be exactly, and in equal part right and wrong if yours and the “non-partisan” journalists have it correctly. Is it arrogant to question whether that really makes much sense?

Well, actually, Phil Gramm and quite a number of other prominent Republicans have flat out said that tax cuts are good policy precisely because they limit the ability of Congress to increase spending. That's no secret.

So, where is your poof that they are "designed to incapacitate government to do any thing but transfer taxpayer dollars to multinational corporations and their owners?" That's a good example of the type of rhetoric I'm talking about--no, you didn't use the term "evil," you're just implying that these are monstrously awful policies and that people are being lied to about the hidden agenda behind them. Which would be evil in most people's eyes.

Can you show me where Republicans or other conservative organizations have stated that their aims are to transfer wealth to corporations and their owners? That their stated reasons are not their real reasons, besides your own belief that it must be so? Can you show my why you believe that they don't really mean it when they say they believe their tax policies will be beneficial to the poor and the middle class, because they promote economic growth?

Note: I did not ask you whether you agreed with their reasoning. I want to know where your evidence is that THEY don't believe these things, that they secretly have motives other than their publicly-stated ones?

I'm sorry: lots of elected Republicans have specifically said they're happy to cut taxes because it helps cut spending. This is not news to me, nor to other people I know.

It seems to me that you are trying to have it multiple ways at once, Mr. Shepherd. First you imply that one party is malevolent and dishonest and lying about its stated reasons for its policies--even though I and others are perfectly aware of these things, as well as the fact that this is an issue that Republicans debate among themselves. We also see perfectly respectable logic to support them--logic some may agree or disagree with, but which is certainly defensible by a decent and reasonable person.

Then you switch back to saying both parties are wrong. But if both are wrong, why your concentration on one of them?

Then you switch to saying that the problem is that the media doesn't discuss policy issues. But if it's policy issues you want to address, why would you blunder into the absurd partisanship of attacking one party over the other? That's rather "Lying In Ponds" whole point, isn't it?

If you want to discuss issues, discuss issues, not parties. If, on the other hand, you want to speak of hidden agendas that aren't all that well hidden to those of us who pay attention to politics, well, how should we react to that? Where's your evidence that their stated reasons are not their true reasons?

You should try making your case more clearly: is it one party you've got issue with, or both? Is it policies you want to go after, or political parties?

And, have you ever considered joining one party or the other, getting involved, and trying to change things? Indeed, perhaps getting involved in Republican politics would be particularly smart, since you could have a bigger influence on changing things there.

I’m sorry if I haven’t made my main point clear, Dean.

First of all, yes, I have problems with policies and politicians of both parties. Let’s call it my non-partisan side. But I’m a registered Democrat and, based upon reasoned judgments (I believe) about the general philosophies and policy directions of the two parties, a strong partisan. I do my homework, I vote and that’s the extent of my involvement – other than sharing my arrogant opinion with lost souls.

We could argue about specific policies all day but, since I brought it up, let me say a couple of things about neo-conservative fiscal rhetoric and reality. It’s certainly possible to make a case that certain tax cuts, properly timed, can have a stimulating effect on the economy. However, massive tax cuts leading to large structural deficits (the neo-cons stock-in trade), which starve the economy of money, do not. One good measure of the stimulative effect of tax policy is the proportion of taxes to GDP. Under Reagan and both Bush’s tax cuts and deficits that number was between 21 and 23%. Under Clinton’s more balanced tax policy, leading to shrinking deficits, the number was around 18.4%. Reputable economists agree on these principles and state flatly that the most recent Bush cut will have very little stimulative effect in the short term and will probably cost jobs as deficits and debt increase.

But my real point is that, unlike the Democrats, neo-con Republicans run on and get elected on big, bald-faced lies about the reasons behind and/or the probable effects of their policies. Not little lies about sex, drug use or the many comforting lies that most citizens require of their politicians but lies to their future employers (us) about what they plan to do with the job. Bush’s campaign rhetoric: “I will be a uniter [sic] not a divider…will practice a humble foreign policy…support a woman’s right to choose…will strengthen Social Security (and) environmental protection…support a balanced budget”, etc”. Does this sound like the Bush who got the job and do you really think that he even believed all these things when he said them?

I suspect that you won’t believe that the “secret” intention of neo-cons is to starve the government because of anything I say, so I suggest that you read it from the source’s mouth. Read David Stockman (“starve the beast”), Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist and, if you’re reading with an open mind, you’ll start to get a picture of the philosophy behind the policy. George Bush (the senior) gave it a proper moniker: “voodoo economics.”

While you’re at it, do the math and ask yourself what will be the effect when millions of baby boomers retire under huge structural deficits and massive debts and the ratio of workers to retirees has been cut in half and relative healthcare costs have doubled. Our kids will have to make some hard choices: onerous and unsustainable tax rates, or draconian cutbacks on defense spending, domestic security, criminal justice, national infrastructure, Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid), environmental protection, etc. (I’m fairly certain that Lockheed Martin, and the prison conglomerates will get their cut off the top). Any way you slice it, it’s a horrible and tragically unnecessary inheritance for our kids.

As far as the media goes, main-stream, hard journalists like Seymour Hirsch and Dana Milbank have documented in some detail the facts that belie the rhetoric but commentators are unwilling to say so. One example: All the mainstream news organizations are chasing the question of whether Saddam had WMD’s and whether the Iraqi program was exaggerated for political ends (even though there really is no question about it). But who cares? The big lie was the entire, “we’re going after Saddam’s WMD program,” charade when Bush, Cheney, et al had decided months before that they were going to bring down Hussein and his Baathist government. They simply had to craft a public justification (if you want to read the real one, just trip over the “New American Century” web site), WMDs and sell it to the American public and the world. Again, the facts detailing the deception are well established, yet mainstream journalism is paralyzed from drawing inescapable conclusions: neo-conservative Republicans are liars of high order and hold office and legislate policy by false pretense.

Well, Steve, you appear to define "reputable" economists as those who agree with you. You also appear to selectively ignore reasonable people who disagree with you. You're absolutely convinced of the rightness of your cause and the wrongness, ignorance, or dishonesty of those who disagree with you.
I find several of your assertions questionable, I believe others are flat wrong, and some strike me as merely opinions with which reasonable people may disagree.

You are a partisan. There's nothing wrong with that, but but don't blame the rest of us for recognizing you for what you are.

Both major parties have their evil sides. The Democrats are more efficient at hiding their evil than the Republicans. Every four to eight years both parties have had presidential primary candidates looking for my vote. In general the Dems have offered up ideas such as universal health care and minimum wage increases to gain my support and the GOP has offered lowered taxes and less government interference with business. It is as if each party lives on a different planet. Once sworn into office neither party produces its stated outcome. Trickle down economics only multiplied the number of homeless people and created a race to the bottom by the states in promoting economic and social justice. Hillary's health care plan was a plan designed to fail because of its shear complexity. Clinton was an utter failure at using the muscle of the executive branch when he had the last democratic congress we are likely to see again available to him. After that he pulled NAFTA into existence which has made America the world's largest exporter of jobs.
As for our current situation I wish the Dems would just stand aside and let the GOP have its way. Then as our current recession grows even deeper and deeper and the GOP cuts taxes again and again Americans just might reach that threshold of suffering needed to bring true democracy to this country.

By the way, I am a partisan myself. Although I'm less of one than I used to be.

I left the Democratic Party some years ago. Spiritually, anyway. I'm a registered Democrat, but on an intellectual level I don't consider myself one anymore.

Indeed, I'll go further: I left because of what I considered deep intellectual dishonesty and spiritual bereftness within the party.

I voted for Bush. I'm proud of that choice. I campaigned for him. While I will vote for either Gephardt or Lieberman in the primaries next year, barring something major that changes the equation I'll almost certainly vote for Bush next November.

I am extraordinarily proud of his performance as President. He has let me down in some areas, but exceeded my expectations in others. Not just on the war either.

I believe his tax cuts are morally and fiscally correct. There are, furthermore, economists I consider reputable who agree.

I make $30,000 a year. I have no particular political connections, through family or otherwise. I like this President, and, for the moment anyway, I like the direction he's taking both his party and the country. When that changes, I'll change my support.

So. Am I stupid? Am I ignorant? Am I a blind sheep?

Or am I just someone you disagree with, Steve?

Dean, my opinion and political world view is, in important ways, starkly different from yours. I see no reason why that should offend you any more than I. That is in contrast to having an arrogant opinion that is, in turns, amusing and depressing.

I believe that your opinions and beliefs are partially the product of a sustained and extremely disciplined message marketing campaign that began during Ronald Reagan's first presidential campaign as well as a mainstream media that is hopelessly invested in the current political system and the status quo. As you say, many decent, reasonable people share your viewpoint so it's hard for me to see it as a personal failing. Yet we can’t both be correct in our political views.

I must admit that your viewpoint is a bit more troubling for me than most and not because of your income level. Many people of moderate means (especially in the south), who should be the natural enemies of Neo-conservative policies, have been persuaded by their arguments – or their resentment of Yankees (government, city folk, welfare queens, etc.). But most of these people are woefully uneducated about the events outside their immediate lives, the better informed generally limiting themselves to “journalism” with which they agree (ranging from the 700 Club to FOX news). Well-informed, well-read folks, such as you, do challenge my thinking and, hopefully, my arrogance. Thanks.

Dean,
So you are a capitalist without capital? That's capital.

Dean--

I agree with you that, whether or not he recognizes it, Steve is definitely partisan. Many of us are; Steve, however, seems unable to recognize it.

Your original piece about the "cure for the affliction" is marvelous. I do have friends whom I believe to be intelligent, good people - who come to conclusions diametrically opposed to mine on various issues. We can't both be right, sooooo.... what gives?

I think that much of this sort of discrepancy comes from an individual's concept of basic truths on a myriad of topics. I assume a certain set of facts to be the case; my friend assumes others. Sometimes, these facts are ingrained so deeply into our psyches that it is difficult to find ANY evidence that will alter them.

Still - I do like to hear the reasoning of my friends. Once in a while, I do change my mindset. (Going from in favor of capital punishment to against is an example.)

The difference between someone like Steve and myself is this. While I DO think that there are some "evil" members of both parties - I do not think that, on average, people adhere to one set of beliefs out of selfishness or because they wish to help only "1%" of the population.

I think that they hold the beliefs that they do because they sincerely think THIS is the way that will lead to a most just and good society on average. Both parties have supported programs that were begun with good intentions - that had poor results. But they wanted them because they would help people; not harm them. Yes - both the Democrats and the Republicans work this way.

Are our politicians sometimes too chicken to tell the public what they REALLY think? Are they afraid that they will get voted out of office if they don't sometimes prevaricate or grovel or weasel? Sure.

But none of that means that one party intentionally lies to the public and the other party only has our best interests at heart.......

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I've said, Peg, before disparaging me in print:

"...I’m a registered Democrat and...a strong partisan."

Otherwise, the difference between us is as you describe. I don't believe that the neo-conservative ethic is, for the most part, concerned with creating the "most just and good society". I also no longer believe in Santa Claus.

oooh... sorry, steve. saw that part about the "non-partisan" part of you - and didn't realize that it was so teensy.

if you "no longer believe in santa claus" as you put it ... how do you explain that:

**roughly at least 50% of the population adheres to "selfish and evil" non-liberal beliefs?

**that far more of those who do have conservative beliefs are not wealthy (thus they have these beliefs not for self-serving reasons)?

**that welfare reform is helping those on the bottom rungs of society in substantive ways far more than welfare did?

**that many of those in the current administration could have stayed in the private sector and made far more money than had they gone into politics?

why is it that so many people are either selfish ... or stupid ... or unconcerned with what happens to others?

it's unfortunate that you have so many ill-feelings for those who see issues differently than you do. how can you really listen to those with different views from your own when you are so biased in advance about their intentions?

my own background - philosophy - makes me continually question so much. i find very few easy answers... and that's part of why i do like to hear opinions on all sides - to see how those with quite disparate belief structures view the world.

No problem, Peg, apology accepted. Sadly, you are right that my non-partisan side is the smaller part of my political being at present. Not because that’s what I desire, but because there’s too much at stake to ignore what’s happening just to make myself feel better.

Like you, I find new questions for every answer, although more through the study of psychology. Interestingly, psychology seems more relevant to your questions, although I’m not sure it (or my understanding of it) has the power to answer them. But let me first say that I have no “ill-feelings” towards people who simply disagree with me and the fact that subscribers to the conservative view regularly ascribe ill feelings to those with whom they disagree is an interesting psychological question in itself.

I don’t know that 50% of the population adheres to non-liberal beliefs. It seems to me that the best one can say is that it depends upon how you ask the questions. Polling seems to show that, from a government policy standpoint, the majority of Americans (conceptually, at least) are social liberals (libertarians?) and fiscal conservatives. Although, when you ask what government services that make up most of expenditures, defense, Social Security, Medicare, help for the working poor, support for US farming, disaster relief, (now) domestic security, highways and infrastructure, parks, etc., they would like to eliminate they turn out, in fact, not to be very fiscally conservative in practice.

The alignment of lower-middle-class whites and conservative beliefs is a fascinating question. The alignment of race and geography with these beliefs gives us some clues. The political split between north and south, urban and rural, evangelical Christians and other religions (or non-religions) which is little more than the psychology of “us and them”, must necessarily color political viewpoints. These tensions have expertly exploited and manipulated by neo-cons (I’m always referring to the politicians) to their great benefit and to the great detriment of the rest of us.

Welfare reform was engineered by a broad coalition of moderates and conservatives and has succeeded (for the most part and only so far) because economic circumstances were ideal and because it moved toward what “welfare” was always intended to be: a hand-up rather than a hand-out. The failed hand-out welfare of the 60s, 70s and 80s (that was so well exploited by the Reagan era neo-cons to create resentment in lower middle-class whites) was only the first part of Johnson’s “Great Society” program. An equally ambitious program of education and training (the hand-up part) was supposed to be the next step, but conservative forces defeated the legislation. We’ll see what happens as things continue to get more competitive in society under the Bush economy – for the moment crime in most categories is rising for the first time in a decade.

I’ll turn your last question (a very good one) on its head: why would millionaire, white conservatives, who worship at the alter of the free market as a cure to what ails us and who regularly disparage government as a solution to social problems, seek to work in “bad” government. And would you hire someone who, during his or her interview, passionately explained that the company could never succeed in its mission and basically sucked?

steve--

from many of your comments, you appear to think that conservatives "manipulate" people - and liberals do not. though i would agree that there are clearly distinctions between your "average" conservative and "average" liberal ... still, both groups are made up of plain old people. both groups have members who would represent pretty much all that is good - and bad - about the human race. thus - i far prefer to discuss the individual issues, rather than claiming either conservatives or liberals have the moral high ground.

as for your last question. i don't think that conservatives think is government is bad, per se. this appears to me to be an error on the part of some liberals. the problem is not that these conservatives dislike government - but that they think government today has gone far beyond what its proper - and constitutional - role is.

maybe one of the biggest underlying differences between conservatives and liberals is this. not that one side thinks government is bad and the other good. but that one side thinks government can only provide the platform ... the legal structure, the liberty and the opportunity for people to turn around their lives. and the other side thinks that the government itself should be the entity responsible for the "turning around."

i think that conservatives think "the company has succeeded" when the government has constructed a world in which most people can reach their goals if they invest what is necessary to do so. but that the government is not responsible for either the success nor the failure of its citizens.

and - not everyone will succeed.

liberals think that "the company has succeeded" when everyone IS successful. since i think this is an impossible goal - i do believe that it's the liberals who set up their concept of government for failure....

Interesting thoughts, Peg. Yes, fish gotta swim and pols gotta manipulate. But again, I’m talking about big lies about what they intend to do with the job.

I want to be clear on this point: I don’t lump neo-conservative politicians together with those citizens who believe them. That would be like lumping together land swindlers and their victims who, of course, are innocent, out of money and up to their ankles in muck. Unfortunately, if enough people are “swindled” by the neo-cons, everyone will wind up stuck in the same swamp.

I don’t want to presume to know what all liberals think the proper role of government is, but I believe that it’s pretty close to your conservative (citizen’s) ideal: to be instrumental in constructing “a world in which most people can reach their goals if they invest what is necessary to do so.” Now, if you think that government has done all it can possibly do to help those who are willing to reach their goals, then tax cuts for millionaires may make sense. Not only do I think that we are a long way from your ideal, my real point is that neo-conservative politicians don’t share it. Their goal is to limit government’s ability to that very thing because it doesn’t always favor the interests of business, which wants a cheap, relatively powerless workforce and virtually no regulation that impedes profit.

It’s interesting that George Bush and Al Gore ran on almost exactly the same platform: uniting the country, growing the economy, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, environmental stewardship, productive foreign policy engagement, national defense and empowering the poor (perhaps in different orders or emphasis). Ask yourself who would really work to achieve the most of those goals to the greatest extent, a Democrat or a Republican.

steve--would i prefer the democrat or the republican to accomplish those goals? actually - i doubt that the majority of politicians in either party would be too wonderful at achieving the goals we've discussed.

the democrat true believers think that government should - and can - provide all for its citizens. they wish to take away more & more decision making from the citizen and give that power to the government. all in the name of what's good for us.

the republican true believers wish to leave more money in the pockets of citizens ... but refuse to cut the myriad of programs that voraciously consume money today in the federal government. few politicians on the right have the guts to tell people we must reign in spending on social security, medicare, welfare for corporations, middle class america, and so forth. they're too worried that they won't get re-elected if they say those things.

and maybe they are right.

i too often vote for independents. they far more represent what i believe ... tho they rarely get elected.

i'm a HUGE believer that we're far better off with a well educated citizenry that, for the most part, is responsible for its OWN welfare. if you teach people that the law micromanages their life - then they don't learn how to handle their lives themselves.

personally - it doesn't appear that either party does a very good job of operating on this theory.

I agree with much of your sentiment here, Peg. However, when you simultaneously decry an uneducated citizenry and “voracious” government spending, preceded with a Republican play-book smear of what democratic “true believers” think, I think you make my point for me. How is it, do you think, that you get an educated citizenry that isn’t so preoccupied with day-to-day survival that it can engage in the political process? Will corporations or small businesses do it as a community service? The exalted free-market has given us exactly the sort of political education you would expect – media in search of market share.

Now, you have a citizenry who thinks they can construct a worthwhile political opinion because they’ve seen 23 minutes of CNN, MSNBC or even FOX news (or even less). They may even come to believe that hard-core democrats – the folks who fight to allow a woman control over her own reproductive organs, work tirelessly to expand voting rights and cut their own political throats trying to reduce the influence of campaign money – want to “take away more & more decision making from the citizen and give that power to the government.” That’s the exact sort of propaganda I would expect people spoon-fed mainstream drivel to come to believe. Other than unregulated gun ownership and the right to demonstrate you resentment with a confederate flag, what individual rights do you see being supported, or even protected, by neo-conservative Republicans?

Yes, they would like protect and enhance the rights of profit-taking organizations (especially if they happen to be campaign contributors) and morally equate them with the rights of individuals which is, of course, pernicious nonsense. Organizations, especially the profit-taking sort, are amoral and cannot deserve the same liberty standing as individuals. Both parties are, as you suggest, guilty of transferring taxpayers money to these organizations (and some individuals) who don’t need or deserve it. Republicans, generally, are just less apologetic about it.