Stephen,
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. The NYT article and editorial are independent of Tom DeLay, since the NYT employs the same method of criticism (“critics say”) in many of their articles. It is the NYT’s claim of unbiased reporting that irks me. As Bill Bennett pointed out on CNN, the media’s reporting of the “bad news” (the killings in Iraq, the sectarian violence, the kidnappings) is not a problem per se. After all, newspapers report on crimes, not peaceful citizenry. The problem arises when people form their opinions—and politicians, their votes—based on what the media portrays: invariably bad news with not-quite-objective reporting.
The partisan divide in this country seems to be the widest and most extreme we’ve seen in recent history. So, I think it’s important to distinguish conservatives from Republicans. Last October, NR’s cover story tagline was “Sometimes it’s only when you’ve run aground that you realize you needed a rudder.” That was referring to the GOP. I think the Republican Party should be the party of the future, but they have become complacent, counting on the Democrats inability to win elections for their survival. This is not a strategy.
Do I have an axe to grind? I don’t feel like a martyr, and I don’t care what the NYT thinks or says of me. I do care about the person that picks up the NYT and reads Paul Krugman’s faulty assertions, and then walks away with an opinion formed by what they read. In my view that’s the real danger, and why I think it’s almost more important to write about the media than, say, spout my personal opinions about how to run a country, hoping some politician will adopt my ideas. In any event, I hope this gives you an idea of where I personally stand, and also helps you figure out where you stand, too.
Regards,
Nathan Goulding
I didn't send this reply to him, I wrote him something much shorter, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Nathan--
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that while there may be a large partisan divide, I can tell from your comments that you share my concern about the direction of our country as well. My hope is that if people across the political spectrum can agree to dialog, that will form the critical basis for moving our country forward. Ideally this forward movement will be based on the good ideas that are available from all sides.
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter how educated you are or which columnists you read. I think our country is going in the wrong direction because citizens let it. As our country continues to grow, and as the light of our empire fades, we are faced with the most difficult challenge since WWII. The world is changing in a big way, and in a way that threatens the American way of life -- how it threatens us is open to interpretation. You say terrorists, I say oil, but they're just different sides of the same eventuality. I think that most voters are not critically engaged with the issues, and as a result, pork barrel politics continues to hold sway over elected officials. Their mandate is to bring home the bacon, which they consistently do, while the empire sails off into the sunset, like all great empires before it.
At the end of the day, I think most people reading Paul Krugman take it for what it is: a thought provoking inquiry. I suppose some people must take it as gospel or fact, but for most Times readers, it's just entertainment. Ultimately I think citizens need to take personal responsibility for the state of their republic. I don't care if people read Paul Krugman or a National Review columnist, ultimately citizens and tax payers are to blame for how screwed we are, not the news. This is our country and we have both the power and responsibility to do something about it.
I think you could probably help me out here, but my impression of the major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals really isn't one of differing governing philosophies. I think the real difference is this: Conservatives have a fairly clearly defined set of values and make governing decisions based on these beliefs. Liberals, while prone to a kind of bleeding-heart-ism, don't have a coherent set of values or beliefs. This seems to drive Conservatives up a wall. Liberal governing decisions are made largely based on numbers and analysis rather than principle.
Take some examples. Immigration. For Liberals, while there is the appeal of being nice, the fact is, we recognize that it's simply more practical and cheaper to let Mexicans in. It's also good PR. For Conservatives, there seems to be a very powerful idea that a rule was broken and therefore punishment must ensue. I think both arguments have logic and merit, but I do tend to lean towards pragmatism rather than principle. Besides, the Jews weren't allowed in America at one time (National Origins Act of 1924), and we know how that story ended. For that reason, I think anyone who wants to come to the US should be given a berth. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point for me is that Conservatives care about the principal of the thing, and Liberals care about a practical solution that will be easy and economically beneficial to everyone.
Another example would be suburbs and exurbs. Conservatives feel that people have the (literally) God-given right to live as they please. This is a very strong current in Conservative thought. Liberals feel that the cost that one's life imposes on the group as a whole ought to be a consideration. Again, you have a very solid moral edifice versus an idea whose concern is slanted more towards practicality. Health insurance follows the same lines. Conservatives feel that a man ought to provide for himself; Liberals recognize that it is simply cheaper if everyone has insurance, regardless of moral imperative. It is also nice that starving rural children in trailers and inner city youth will get immunizations, and there are certainly those that are motivated by what to them is a moral imperative. But I think the real drive for Liberals is the cost savings. If everyone is insured, then the insured are no longer paying for the uninsured in their premiums. It's about strategically injecting money in the right places, rather than an overriding moral principle. My complaint with Conservatives is that they don't seem to like spreadsheets or science. If you boil down the numbers, our current insurance system costs taxpayers (through entitlement programs like Medicare) literally billions more dollars than it should or would under a more regulated system.
Anyway, I know you and I aren't going to agree on that sort of thing, apologies for even going there. I hope it illustrates what I think might be a useful point: that the concerns of the different groups are along totally different axes, and that's why dialog is so difficult. I know that I phrased some of my arguments in a way that shows what I think is right, but I hope that it illustrated the idea that Conservatives are worried about moral values and Liberals are concerned about morally neutral topics [based on facts derived from studies, numbers, science, and analysis].
I guess when I look even higher up, I think Liberals are mostly concerned with money. What distresses me about Republicans -- and I understand that many Conservatives are disappointed with the GOP too -- is that they seem to wield the whole moral value argument club to shield tax payers from the unbelievable financial gain they have wrought from their government connections. That's what really gets my goat. You and I can argue about policy, news media, etc., but at the end of the day, the entire Federal Government is laughing all the way to the bank as their shares of stock go ballistic through federal subsidies to companies they own shares in, from pharmaceuticals, oil & energy, to mega-agriculture.
I work for a company that succeeds on the merits, not on our connections to federal policy makers. We don't get any handouts like no-bid contracts or money not to grow crops. We live and die by our own revenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment