A recent article (attributed to filmmaker Ron Howard) (1) attempts to explain the rationale behind "being a liberal". Reading this, I feel the need to respond to the relevant arguments.
The entry begins,
“I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because (note 1) quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. (note 2) I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen"
I'll break my arguments up into a couple of sections, starting here.
First, what I call the "preamble" to this article says that the author is getting "tired of being told what (he believes)". I can relate to this very legitimate concern, which appears to be bi-partisan in nature. Having said this, let's look at a recent case involving one Pete Buttigieg.
It has been pointed out that the current Democratic platform condemns pro-life members of that party. At a public forum, the presidential candidate was asked whether he would support removal of that platform plank. Buttigieg's response (although indirect) was to defend the platform's current language, and at least imply that there is no place for "pro-life Democrats". (2) If this isn't intolerance of other opinions, I don't know what exactly is. Perhaps the author should consider this before rushing to defend liberalism.
Second, the writer advocated higher taxes to pay for healthcare. I'm not sure how we should pay for these expenses. However, I offer that those who want higher taxes aren't really thinking that clearly. Why in the world would you want to have LESS money in your pocket, as opposed to more? This fails what I call the "logic test".
Continuing:
"3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist"
Regarding section three, I share the belief that "education should be affordable". Nevertheless, I am opposed to the idea of "free" college education. If you don't charge students at least a little money, then how are you going to pay for all the textbooks used, along with other educational materials? And what of salaries for teachers and other staff? There are many teachers who use the occupation to put food on their plates; some aren't in the job for their health, so to speak.
I find myself somewhat agreeing with the author as to section four. There are those who would rather sit on their behinds eating Fritos than try to make something of themselves. These are the people that I oppose giving anything other than the most basic funding to. Captain John Smith, one of the original American settlers (he helped to found settlements in Virginia circa 1607) said it best; "if you don't work, then you don't eat". (3) Don't get me wrong; I have no problem giving money to those unable to work. However, if you are able but unwilling to work, you shouldn't be getting large government checks every month.
Now, let me address the second part of section four. According to the author, he has "a massive moral problem" with the fact that some are wealthier than others. This is the nature of our capitalist system; some will have less money, and some will have more. Seeing as that is the case, how then do you acquire more wealth? The answer is simple; you work for it, and get "more" via ingenuity and knowledge. By the way, there's nothing wrong (as I see it) with wanting to have money, live a long life, and have a high standard of living. That is called "the American way".
The other "way" is to have the government determine everything, right down to what you are allowed to eat and drink (sound familiar, Bill DeBlasio?). It is the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (to clarify, if the government finds that you are able to give something, you give it....if they find that you need something, it is given to you based on what the government thinks you need of it....and you have no choice in the matter, or right to object).
This is a system that we call "communism"; it is in direct opposition to "the American way", and the idea of "natural rights" (indeed, you have no rights in such a system). That brings us to the definition of "communist"; that is, someone who believes in and advocates for this system. Being that the author professes to be of this opinion, he may rightly be called a "communist". (3)
I'll write more on this later; this has turned out to be a lot longer of a rebuttal than I thought it would be.
Note 1: As a self-proclaimed "grammar guy", I'd be remiss (that is, careless in the performance of my duty) to not point out certain errors. It is generally regarded as bad form to start a sentence with the word "because", as is done here.
Note 2: Continuing my grammar critique, this is one of several run-on sentences in the original article.
Sources:
1. Miller Boland, Kerry. "'I Believe Ron Howard Wrote...". Facebook, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/kerry.miller.7549/posts/10157255869409005. Accessed 8 Feb 2020.
2. Saavedra, Ryan. "Pete Buttigieg Tells Woman Her Pro-Life Views Not Welcomed In Democrat Party". The Daily Wire, 2020, https://www.dailywire.com/news/pete-buttigieg-tells-woman-her-pro-life-views-not-welcomed-in-democrat-party. Accessed 8 Feb 2020.
3. Personal knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment