I find this “reasoning” strange. Dubya supported immigration reform and expanded Medicare — which made many right-wingers extremely unhappy — but his critics were never scolded for having “wrong assumptions of what is conservative philosophy.” Bush Sr. signed ADA. Clinton approved the welfare reform law, expanded the federal death penalty, bombed Iraq and Serbia, and threatened to invade Haiti. McCain supported climate change legislation, went after Jack Abramoff and worked with Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy on legislation (campaign reform, immigration overhaul, education, healthcare) that conservatives considered “heretical.” Truman took on labor unions when they were still powerful and fought the commies in Korea. Former five-star general Eisenhower embraced civil rights acts and warned about the “military-industry complex.” JFK cut taxes and stared down the Soviets. LBJ escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War. Nixon went to “Red” China, created the EPA and imposed price controls. Don’t get me started on Barry Goldwater. The list, in any case, of prominent politicians taking positions that seem to contradict their “philosophy” is long.
As wise men noted long ago, we are of more than one mind about the most important things — and people — in our lives.
I myself am for the war on terror, a global warming skeptic and a pro-lifer. But I’m not anti-choice. I’m not against same-sex marriage and I believe that the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy is absurd. I’m for the decriminalization of not just pot but other illegal drugs as well. I want narcotics to be a public health issue not a public safety concern. Ditto with prostitution. I don’t think the Second Amendment should be watered down but, unlike former NRA president Charlton Heston, I won’t mind if the NEA is abolished. I’m for free enterprise but I also acknowledge that without reasonable regulations the capitalist world will resemble the jungle. I’m a lapsed atheist who has a soft heart for the Roman church and the great religions. I rooted for McCain in 2008 but I now think Obama deserves a second term — as long as Congress is run by Republicans.
As someone who attended his first political rally when he was a fifth grader and as a former Trotskyite turned Maoist turned socialist turned liberal turned conservative-libertarian, I find it amusing that I’m now considered ignorant of “liberal philosophy.” In 1994, I wrote an editorial (in the now defunct Marianas Observer) deploring the Republican landslide in that year’s midterm elections. This provoked an extensive rebuttal from a conservative statesider who was then working for the Legislative Bureau. He, too, said, in so many words, that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I fired back with my lengthy defense of liberalism and its history which included a poke here and there at right-wing politics. My stateside liberal friends were pleased.
After close to two decades of editorial writing, however, I’ve finally learned that the “other side” is usually looking at the same issue from another vantage point. I’ve also realized that intelligence — or idiocy — is not exclusive to certain political camps. Moreover, each side of the argument is a big tent containing various shades of opinions. There are several stripes of conservatives, and not all liberals are in complete agreement about everything.
So, clearly, anyone can be a “die-hard liberal” and still concede that wasting public funds on such entities as the Youth Congress must end. No one after all is in favor of squandering taxpayer money but, and surely this is undeniable, liberals are more inclined to use government in promoting the common good as they define it. CNMI politics from the get-go is premised on what government can and must do for the people. They may not call themselves liberals, but the policies pursued by local leaders smack of liberalism: virtually free healthcare, high wages paid by the government (the islands’ primary employer of voter), affordable housing, free education, “scholarships” galore, generous pensions, the “protection” of “threatened” ethnicities, etc. (These are not extended to nonresident workers because they’re not voters and are supposed to be “temporary guests,” but their U.S. citizen children are entitled to various local and federal dole-outs.)
CNMI governance, in short, is liberalism run amuck and the current crisis is its inevitable result. The nanny/welfare state, the dependence on government jobs, programs and favors as well as an unrelenting sense of entitlement and the inability to take personal responsibility for the mess they’re in — all this is the consequence of Santa Claus (i.e., liberal) governance.
Our online commentator also takes issue with another point I made last week: “[T]here are some logic errors in your essay. You say ‘It implies that without the Youth Congress the youth cannot “prepare to meet the challenges of the future” and will be unable to “make recommendations to the policymakers on youth programs.” However having a law that says a YC does one thing is NOT logically the same as saying without it such something is not done by other processes.”
I used the word “implies” to point out that the YC law made unwarranted claims and that I disagree that the YC is preparing the youth “to meet the challenges of the future” and is the only way to allow the youth to “make recommendations to policymakers.”
As to encouraging students to “study science and math, or even the arts” as recommended by our online commentator — sure. But introducing them to real entrepreneurs in the community and how they are coping with this economic depression cannot be a bad idea.
A healthy democracy at any rate needs disagreement. To quote another former leftie turned right-wing libertarian, P.J. O’Rourke, “In a democracy no side wins — forever. The other side can always come back with a different argument. And maybe the next time the other side is right. Information keeps changing, therefore ideas keep changing, therefore minds keep changing.”
Send feedback
