I had an interesting conversation with a friend the other day. He is very Republican and he thinks I am very Democrat. But we talked about what we agree on which was important because we had been talking, well not really talking, about we didn't agree on.
Here's what we agree on - the deficit is too big. People should have health insurance. (We did not agree on whether it should be mandatory!) Unemployment is too high. We don't like taxes. Financial services should have some regulation.
He says the country should be center-right. I think the country should be center-right. We never defined center-right. Here's what it means to me. I won't try to say what it means to him - I really don't know. It might be the same.
What it means to me is that those people on either extreme are probably wrong about almost everything. On the left its people who think more government is the answer to everything. Center-left is that some govenment is really necessary. They don't think the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff. Defense. Trade. Regulating industries that left to their own devices would destroy the country for a few extra dollars.
On the right, its the people who say that government can't do anything right and should be as small and powerless as possible. Center-right is that some government is really necessary. They don't think that the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff.
I think the difference is how do we pay for it. On the left there is not as much angst about a deficit. On the right there is.
For me personally, I think being in the center (or a moderate) means that we feed our hungry, we house the homeless, we protect the weak. If we are center-right we figure out how to pay for it. If we are center-left we don't make the painful choices - we do it all. Wait though - the center-right won't make painful choices either. They want low taxes, a war in the Middle East, minimal government and I don't think they want little kids to starve or be homeless. The center-left wants the rich to pay more taxes and the war in the Middle East to go away.
So I am Center-Right because I think we should balance the budget. But I also think we should have a fair tax system, feed the hungry, house the homeless and take care of the least among us. I think that we only go to war when our national survival is at stake. And only if we declare war like our Constitution requires. War is a state between two countries. This "war" in the Middle East is not a war. It's a money pit. If we weren't there we'd have a lot more money to care for the hungry and homeless and taxes would not have to be raised to do it. Or at least not as much.
My guess is that all the noise that we hear is between the 20% on the far right talking to the 20% on the far left. The 60% (probably split down the middle) in the center (whether right or left)never really get heard. We need to be. They believe that our people and our country come first. They beleive that war is not a football game where we cheer for good plays and moan when the pass is intercepted. War is politics gone awry. Homelessness is politics gone awry. Hungry children is politics gone awry.
There is not a lot of difference between center-right and center-left. There is a lot they have in common. It is time for that part of the country to take the country back. So, when you vote, think about the people you are voting for. Are they the 20% on either extreme who are keeping us apart and yelling about our differences or do they fall into the 60% in the center-right / center-left who are looking for the areas we have in common and trying to work out the small differences that define us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful and lucid writing. If more people would engage in these conversations we might be able to make some progress.
One thing I disagree with you on is your contention that the right/Republicans are the ones concerned about the deficit. The Republican Party and the conservatives were not at all concerned about the deficit while their party was running it up. In fact, while they will always paint themselves as fiscal conservatives, they have never put that into action in recent history. Deficit spending has actually been the hallmark of Republican administrations in the last half of this century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
I too, believe that the government should balance its checkbook just like the rest of us have to. And the only party in office, at the local, state or national level, who has put that into practice during my lifetime is the Democratic party. The only real believers in balanced budgets are the left.
I don't think being against deficit spending puts you to the right of center (as much as the right would now like you to think that).
Regarding the argument about whether government is a) always good and should therefore be large and powerful or b) always suspect and therefore in need of forceful restraint in size and scope; I would insert my desire for a third option; c) government should be as local as possible. Among the many ideas I have gleaned from my reading of Peter F Drucker my favorite, the one I have found reinforced time and again in daily experience is this - decision making should always be "pushed down" to the lowest level which can support it. Overly centralized control and wasteful micro-management are destructive not only in the business organization but even more so within government - especially given the overwhelming size of our national government. In the state legislature of PA there is currently a constitutional ammendment proposal which would eliminate the authority of local municipalities and place all in the hands of the counties. I personally oppose the move (it has little actual chance of passage) not because I distrust county government but because these local "fiefdoms" are largely effective, efficient and responsive to the citizens who empower them. The officers and and staff who maintain our roads and water supply, and plan and regulate property development are local, frugal, hardworking and manage the burroughs affairs with a real sense of public service to their neighbors. If these functions resided in York I have no doubt that the required increase in spending would never be recouped in the "economies of scale" touted by the proponents of change. Of course I don't expect New Freedom Borough to inspect our groceries or maintain a local airforce, but that's the point. When it comes to providing social welfare or organising group benefits such as pooled healthcare insurance, local and state organisations are the more suitable and effective level for decision making. My main problem with congressional leaders of all stripes is their assumption that every facet of our personal lives are within their scope to examine, regulate, interfere - what have you. This has gotten many times worse during my life time and I desperately hope that current sentiments will reverse the trend.
ReplyDelete