The Liberal-Conservative Charade

The Liberal-Conservative Charade

 These are purely my thoughts on why we are where we are today politically. I welcome your thoughts, comments, agreement, or disagreement.

The terms Liberal and Conservative have been hijacked by pretenders.

Historically, a Liberal was one who believed in the Liberal use of government. A Liberal would believe that a large and intrusive government was best able to deliver what the population needed. This would, of course, require higher taxes to pay for services provided. It would also expect that the individual (and individual states) would be willing to surrender individual liberties for the advantages and services provided by government.

On the other hand, a Conservative was one who believed in the Conservative use of government. The Conservative would expect government to be small and non-intrusive. The Federal government would provide for national needs such as defense, regulating areas of the economy that truly affect interstate commerce. Individuals and states would be expected to provide for their needs locally through state or local taxes. Conservatives would be much more Libertarian in their beliefs in that, if the state (government) did not have a compelling interest, individual behavior would be governed by local standards and mores.

The terms as they are now applied are very different. We now have two Liberal political parties, one with a Liberal Social Philosophy and the other with a Conservative Social Philosophy. One seeks to impose on society what everyone must accept. The other seeks to tell society what is unacceptable for anyone. Both are equally willing to use the club of big government (and your tax dollars) to impose their will on society.

Some years ago, I was in a meeting with a University foundation development officer encouraging the faculty in our college to give in support of the latest university fund raising effort. Ultimately, my comment was, “The problem with getting anyone to give is that they have no reason to believe that the goals of the leadership are in any way aligned with the goals of the general faculty.”

This is the problem that many see with the current political leadership of our country. Despite all their rhetoric, “we have no evidence that their goals are in any way aligned with the goals of the average citizen.” Most Americans fall squarely between the two parties. We tend to be a bit more liberal on social issues, “leave us alone, stay out of our bedrooms.” We tend to be a bit more conservative fiscally, “we don’t mind paying taxes, but don’t waste our dollars.”

I sincerely believe that voters hunger for another alternative. There have been false starts. Years ago it was Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. Pat Buchanan caught fire briefly. More recently it has been Ron Paul and now Bernie Sanders. None of these would likely have been a good president, but serious candidates – Libertarian or otherwise – will eventually take note and seize the opportunity. When that happens, the American oligarchs may be swept from power and never know what hit them.

“The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.

You don’t… You have owners.” George Carlin 

Follow me on 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/@drcamey

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/johncamey

On Change We'd LIKE to Believe In

Jonathan Rockoff writes in The Wall Street Journal,

“Four years ago, Pfizer Inc. was on the verge of abandoning a cancer therapy that had shown little promise. Then scientists discovered it did work, but only in people with a particular genetic anomaly—as few as 6,000 patients a year in the U.S.

In recent years, Pfizer probably wouldn't have considered such a small market worth further investment, company employees say. Yet today, that experimental therapy is Xalkori, newly approved for a rare form of lung cancer, for which Pfizer plans to charge $115,200 a year per patient.” (August 30, 2011)

So, what if you are one of the 6,000 who could benefit from this drug but don’t happen to have $115,200 per year?  This is the fear that nags at many Americans and is precisely why a number of them voted for Barak Obama for president when he promised health care reform.  The vast majority of Americans have health insurance that covers most illnesses or accidental injuries they might confront.  Their fear is that they or a member of their family will suffer a catastrophic illness or injury for which cost of treatment even with insurance will far exceed the limits of their financial resources.

Families are required to consume all of their personal resources before the government provides medical assistance.  I find it unconscionable that hard working, middle class citizens cannot afford to get sick in the richest, most prosperous country in the world.  I believe that when candidate Obama spoke so passionately about the need for health care reform he implied, and most voters believed, he was proposing to provide a safety net to protect families from financial ruin resulting from catastrophic circumstances.  This is not what he, Nancy and Harry delivered.  

I do not necessarily believe the current program should be repealed.  It does provide coverage to many who need it.  It needs to be fixed.  It needs a middle class safety net.

#justsayin