tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6190224356229156559.post322627056986920016..comments2024-03-27T03:24:13.132-04:00Comments on Under the Sun: Conservatives and Progressives reduxglennsunshinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15663153768917258582noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6190224356229156559.post-20353639030603091802012-04-17T00:22:30.963-04:002012-04-17T00:22:30.963-04:00...The progressive, or at least this progressive, ......The progressive, or at least this progressive, also sees government in a different light from that in which the typical conservative sees it. Whereas the conservative sees government as essentially a limiter of the greatest good (freedom) that exists for the purpose of keeping us from killing each other and protecting private property, the progressive sees government (in a representative democracy) as that entity which helps us do what we all decide to do together. Yes, it should keep us from killing each other, and protect private property and individual liberty, but those are only three of the things that we as a majority-rule-but-rights-protecting society want to do. We want good roads, safe food and labor, research that brings about innovation, a safety net that guarantees that citizens have basic needs met (even as we require those who land in the net to do what they can to contribute), and that insures that people get the medical care they need without going bankrupt in the process. Big government isn’t a goal. But the size that is called for is a function of the goods it can produce that the private sector can’t. <br /><br />As for the very rich, we have nothing against them. Our concern isn’t that there are some who have incredible riches. What we worry about is that systems that allow the 1% to have percentages of the overall wealth that they current enjoy require, as a matter of economic necessity, that those who are in the 20%-80% have much, much less than they would if the 1% were still very rich but not quite as rich as they are. We think that a strong middle class is important for the stability of a nation and we worry that a society that increasingly has a greater divide between the haves and the have-nots is a less stable society. <br /><br />I can’t pretend to be an expert in any of these matters. I’m just a Christian, analytic philosopher who pays attention to politics. I appreciate the opportunity for dialogue.<br /><br />God bless, Glenn.<br /><br />TomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6190224356229156559.post-37079994943948193382012-04-17T00:20:46.604-04:002012-04-17T00:20:46.604-04:00I found these posts from a link on Doug Groothius’...I found these posts from a link on Doug Groothius’s Facebook page and they are very interesting. It is nice to see someone doing analysis that doesn’t involve name calling and that recognizes that neither the label “conservative” nor “progressive” is a one-size-fits-all tag.<br /><br />As someone who is broadly on the progressive side of this debate, though, I do have a different take on what drives progressives. Or at least some progressives. Or at least what drives me. <br /><br />While I think that individual liberty is important and should be limited by the law only when there is a sufficient justification for it, I think that the conservative (or classical liberal) view that we are fundamentally autonomous agents who are strictly defined individualistically is untenable. From the beginning of our lives, we are dependent on the care and nurturing of others—parents, teachers, and those with whom we go to church (synagogue, mosque, etc.), friends and others in the community. Even after we are grown, our economic well being is partially due to our individual skills and gifts, and on how hard we work, but it is also crucially dependent on the economy in which we are embedded. Without a good work force to employ, and public transportation system to deliver goods, we would not be able to produce much and what we did produce would have little value. <br /><br />Given the partially social nature of humans, the idea that they are entitled to keep all they earn is implausible. We can earn what we earn because of our economic community. Paying out of our paychecks what is necessary to keep our community in good order is only appropriate because what we earn is crucially dependent on our economic context.<br /><br />So we would disagree at a pretty deep level about the nature of individual selves. But there is more. Because humans are all fallen and largely selfish creatures, it is overly optimistic to think that the less fortunate will have their needs met by the generosity of good-hearted people who act from altruistic motives. Of course, there will be some who give above and beyond, and many who will give some. But in a society with, for example, the healthcare costs that ours has, it is simply Pollyanna to expect that the financial medical needs of the uninsured will be met by generous, voluntary donations of fallen people. Or even of the best intentioned. Take your average low-wage earner whose job doesn’t include health coverage. Suppose she gets into a bad accident or comes down with cancer. Her treatment will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there are lots and lots such people. There just aren’t enough good Samaritans with the means to pay for the healing of all their wounds...Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6190224356229156559.post-45688186041025036802012-04-14T08:10:27.725-04:002012-04-14T08:10:27.725-04:00I would say that, not only are some conservatives ...I would say that, not only are some conservatives bigots, but that a much larger portion of progressives are. But if you are the group who defines the terms of the "debates"--and let's face it, liberals do--you just don't label it as bigotry because your hatred is directed at a group that is deem hateable.Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.com