A serious question for liberals/progressives/socialists/leftists

[SlowwHand]

Just one unless the one of which he's speaking is bipolar.

[MrFun]

I work with three colleagues directly at one National Archives branch while three others are working in the downtown DC branch. I do not know of the three in DC what their political affiliation is. But of the four of us at College Park archives branch:

one Republican, three Democrats - one who is Republican has PhD, two who are Democrats have Masters (myself and other guy), and the gal who is fourth person has a BA and just entered a library of science and graduate program in history

[Zkribbler]

It means that they are trained to be liberal.

True. I went into college as a Goldwater Republican and came out as a McGovern liberal.

My switch was because: (a) back then conservatives were fighting against the civil rights movement; and (b) because conservatives were hawkish on the Vietnam War, and it was becoming ever more apparent to me that our right-wing dictators in Saigon were no better than the left-wing dictators in Hanoi, and so the war was a horrendous waste of blood and gold. Plus, there were environmental and other issues with which I agreed more with liberals.

Today, I'm still more in tune with liberal viewpoints:

(1) Single-payor health care, which isn't socialized medicine. It's privatized medicine being paid for by government rather than by insurance companies. Health insurance is a unique American invention, and it's given us the highest costing healthcare in the world, the shortest lifespans in the industrialized world and the highest infant-mortality in the industrialized world.

(2) Social liberties and equality, including gay marriage, which I see not as a "gay right" but as an equal right.

(3) Progressive tax rates. For the past 30 years, more and more tax breaks have been given to the richest of the rich, meaning a greater and greater share of taxes falls on the middle- and lower- classes.

(4) Unions -- When unions were strong; the American middle-class grew and florished. But for the last 30 years, unions have been declining, and the middle class has at-best remained economically stagnant and has been shrinking in size.

(5) Universal free higher education. When I was going to UCLA, then-Governor Reagan instituted the first tuition on UC students. This began the trend of ever-higher economic hurdles for those trying to better themselves through education.

In short, I am of the middle-class. The middle-class is the economic engine of the nation. Liberals aid the middle-class more than conservative do. And so, I'm a liberal.

[chequita guevara]

Only 'special help' I ever received were notetakers.

If you don't believe it make up a history examination for me to take with no prep, and see how I do.

Why would I believe you? You're a pathological liar.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would I believe you? You're a pathological liar

I can give you phone numbers if you insist. The advisors I worked with are still there.

They will tell you that the only accommodation I received were notetakers.

I have nothing to hide. Ask and you shall receive.

[Kidlicious]

In high school you learn what people already know. Conservatives like that. In college you learn to question what people already know and to think for yourself. It's no wonder that conservatives are against that.

[Zkribbler]

Why would I believe you? You're a pathological liar.

Ben's explanation also makes sense. Why would he be given any aid other than just note takers?

[Ben Kenobi]

In high school you learn what people already know. Conservatives like that. In college you learn to question what people already know and to think for yourself. It's no wonder that conservatives are against that.

Just the opposite. In high school I was taught about how to analyse a document in order to arrive at the most plausible explanation.

In University, you kicked ass if you could regurgitate what Dr. X loved and totally fellate the idea for 15 pages.

I of course excelled at that due to my amazing bull****ting ability to which you all have attested. Poly was excellent training.

[chequita guevara]

Ben's explanation also makes sense. Why would he be given any aid other than just note takers?

Don't defend him.

[Kidlicious]

Just the opposite. In high school I was taught about how to analyse a document in order to arrive at the most plausible explanation.

.... What specifically were you taught.

In University, you kicked ass if you could regurgitate what Dr. X loved and totally fellate the idea for 15 pages.

I of course excelled at that due to my amazing bull****ting ability to which you all have attested. Poly was excellent training.

Well college professors do generally like to discuss interesting ideas. The thing that most people learn in college is that there are alternatives to the ideas that they learned in high school, and that many things that people believe for centuries turns out to be wrong because of individuals who think creatively as college professors try to teach you to do in college.

[DaShi]

Just the opposite. In high school I was taught about how to analyse a document in order to arrive at the most plausible explanation.

But you're one of those christians.

[Velociryx]

Okay, I’ll answer the question in the OP to the best of my ability, after the comments below:

Simple.

My income level (I don't wanna be taxed).
I don't believe in nationalized healthcare (I like my healthcare).
I am against idealogical causes because most/all of the time they are bull****.
And I don't like people telling me what to do/think, especially pompous celebrities that you liberals seem to adore.

So at the end of the day, it’s all about the money. Because most plans for “universal healthcare” don’t talk about the abolishment of the health insurance industry, but rather, about ensuring that all people…all citizens of this country have access to adequate healthcare. Thus, you can keep the plan you have now if you like it, and all the while, not deny healthcare to the millions of Americans who currently have none. Only the most draconian plans (which would never pass anyway) even talk about the abolishment of an entire industry (at least, to my understanding).

Interesting that you come across as being an individualist (don’t like people telling you what to do or think), and yet, you didn’t mention things like PatAct 1 & 2, which allows unprescedented spying on you and yours by Big Brother (never mind that it was a neo con wet dream). I would have thought such a thing would be an affront to an individualist, but apparently it (your individualism) is a somewhat fickle beast. Regardless of that, you also come across (unintentionally, I believe) as something of an anarchist, because even the right believes in the rule of law (some would paint them as being overzealous in that regard…just as the left is often derided as a bunch of commies, the right is often likewise derided as being a bunch of goose stepping fascists). Both are silly of course, but this does not stop the comparisons from being made. Nonetheless, being the citizen of a civilized nation, being a nation of laws, you WILL, on one level or another, be told what you can and cannot do. That’s rather the function of law. Setting boundaries.

Also of interest to me is your belief that Shrub’s actions and activities were “as a drop in the sea,” and that in the larger scheme of things, he did little to impact our relations with our allies around the globe. Now, it IS true that there will be nations that will despise us…not much we can do about that, but we have a stable of allies, and where possible, we should nurture those relationships rather than p*ss on them. Unfortunately in this case, one man CAN make a difference, and he made a negative one. This is not some think tank here stateside saying it, it was our allies in Europe screaming it from the mountaintops. Already, those attitudes are changing and becoming more cordial. Amazing what a short amount of time and a different individual can do.

From your previous posts, I get the sense that specifically, you don’t like corporate regulation, however, and wish to see most (if not all of it) simply done away with. The trouble with that line of thinking is that we’ve already been down that road, and it was demonstrably the incorrect choice. Mark this down as reason one why I cannot side with the conservative mindset. Their ideology wishes to take us down a road that we’ve not only been down before, but know to be less than optimal, and worse than what we have right now.

As to not wanting to be told what to think…I have never seen or heard anything in the “liberal agenda” that would seek to establish thought control, though some of the things I’ve heard the far right spew make me wonder…

So…my reasons for “why I do it.” (keep in mind that just as you have painted liberals with an exceedingly broad brush, I shall give conservatives a similar treatment).

1) Much of the conservative dogma looks and feels like pages from the past that we’ve already tried, and found not to work. I don’t believe in the notion of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, so I’m game to try something new and different, even at the risk of having to experiment a bit before we settle on something that works for everyone.

2) I hold true to the belief that creating opportunities for those less fortunate than myself not only is good for the nation as a whole (economically), but also strengthens the social fabric that binds us together AS a nation, and does so without infringing on your rights to do pretty much as you please.

3) I believe in fiscal responsibility. Cutting taxes just to give the rich more money in their pockets without cutting spending by a corresponding amount (and preferably more, in good economic times), is not only fiscally irresponsible, it’s morally irresponsible as well. We already know that cutting certain programs (I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks here) is “political suicide” and it is such because we, as a nation, believe these programs to be both right and necessary. Thus, we need a level of taxation that can support them in some form or fashion. Does this mean that said programs are perfect? Far from it, and there’s ALWAYS room for improvement, but I often get the sense that if the conservatives got their way, we’d do away with the notion of worker’s rights and the social safety net entirely, reduce or eliminate taxes on the wealthy and the middle class told to simply rot. The lower classes told something far less polite than that. This is not the kind of country I have any desire to live in. I know, I know...you'll tell me that it is the CONSERVATIVES who are the fiscally responsible party, but after eight years of Bush, that's not really true any more, is it? Granted, our sitting president is spending huge amounts of money, and was sent down that road to fix a problem caused by deregulation of the financial industry (you can say that Clinton did it with his charge to Fannie and Freddy, but the reality is that taken as a whole, the number of community investment loans made up a relatively small portion of the whole, out of control industry during the height of the boom, so it's back to the need for...regulation. )

4) I believe in the separation of church and state, and fear that large segments of the conservative population falls into the Christian Fundy camp, and I don’t want what they’re selling, so even if I agreed with certain platform planks of conservative ideology, my stomach turns at the Fundy element, and I must simply say no.

5) There is a very definite sense that conservativism = favoring the rich, and liberalism = favoring the everyman. How much of this is actually true, I leave it for you to decide, but as I am not a member of the elite rich, I tend to favor policies that will be to MY benefit, and every time I hear a conservative pundit speak, I cannot help but feel that he holds me in disdain. I do not wish to support those who despise me, or seem to, and so…I’m out of the conservative club. (Oftentimes, I wonder if the conservative pundits are even living on the same planet, but that is neither here nor there).

6) Sarah Palin is a complete idiot. Any ideology that can embrace her as their "darling" is something I want to run fast and far from. If she can somehow embody what it "is" to be conservative for large segments OF conservatives, then I know I'm on the right side.

There are others, but in broad strokes, I think that outlines my position.

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

What specifically were you taught.

I did IB, so my experience is NOT typical.

We were taught that there are certain facts which are important to assessing reliability for a document.

1. When the article was written. If it is close to the date, the more reliable the source.

2. The number of copies, and the date of the oldest manuscript available. Again, the older, and the more copies, gives us greater confidence.

3. Primary/Secondary source. Is the author writing what he himself has said, or is he relying on other people. Primary sources can be more reliable for a particular event, secondary for a collation of evidence not available to a single source. Whenever possible, use primary sources.

4. Bias. Everyone has bias. Just because a source has bias doesn't mean that the source is inaccurate. If I want to study fashions in Nazi Germany, a prejudiced statement from someone can be accurate in saying this is what people wore back in the day. If you think a source doesn't have bias, read it again.

5. Truth. Historians cannot know what exactly happened. They can only assess whether something is more true or likely to have happened then something else.

6. Corroboration. Does the source corroborate with others? If it doesn't is there a good explanation, (ie, evidence that the others did not have access)?

We did this back at the start of grade 11. Fun class.

[Velociryx]

And for the record, I'd be THRILLED if we had a true multiparty system in this country...having only two viable alternatives isn't much of a choice. The libs (centerists, as Che accurately portrays them) don't offer me everything I would want, and aren't without their drawbacks, but...it's better than the alternative!

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

. They can only assess whether something is more true or likely to have happened then something else.

This is why historians may differ. It would explain how MrFun worships Abe Lincoln, but I know he was a poser.