I've known Dan Bessie for a long time. He is a small publisher, and his father was one of the black-listed Hollywood Ten during the McCarthy era. As it turns out, Dan's father was in fact a communist, and in the case of Dan, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Dan and I sometimes Email back and forth in debate, and I thought I'd share some of it with you, or at least the latest round of debates.
----------------
In the first Email of this latest debate, Dan sent me a link to a cartoon that depicted today's outcry against Obama's socialist policies as simply a bunch of folks rebutting needed change and calling it socialist. The programs addressed in the cartoon are Public Schools, a public water system, Public Highways, public parks, and now public health care.
The federal government has no business being involved in any of those issues. Madison's veto of a Public Works Bill in 1817, for example, reminded us that from a Constitutional standpoint, the states have the responsibility to keep up the highways, not the federal government.
I also told Dan that, "every one of those public systems are unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the authority to run any of them. Each and every one of them are state issues. As for federally run health care, the idea that there is no public option is a lie. The states have a public option. Here in California it is called Medi-Cal. Therefore, when the Democrats proclaim there is no health care available to 47 million Americans, it is a lie. The push is not for giving people health care, but for the federal government to gain control of the system. That is where the danger lies. Thanks for the cartoon, it was humorous, but misses the point, as does most of the left."
Dan responded (and my answers to his response follow each question in red),
"I'm not going to get into a constitutional argument with you regarding states right, but let me ask you, honestly:
Would you want to not have Social Security? Biggest Ponzi Scam ever created.
Would you want to bring back child labor? Those laws would have passed regardless.
Would you want to end Medicare? It is bankrupt. States are allowed to have similar programs if the people so wish.
Would you want to end public schools? State function. Federal Government has no business in schools. children from private schools and home schooling score higher.
Would you want to close the national parks? Unconstitutional for federal government to snatch up land.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Dan's next response?
Thanks for your views, Doug... but you don't answer the questions. What you do instead, is rely on the mistaken belief that because, more than 200 years ago, a group of men got together and framed a Constitution, that therefore everything in it is holy writ, and must be obeyed to the letter.
What you ignore is the fact that our Constitution was written during a time of very particular circumstances; circumstances that are very very different than they are today. So instead of THINKING, you throw out catch phrases you've learned, heard from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whoever, implying that the legislators of each state in the union are wise enough to enact laws and social welfare benefits so that everyone will have good medical care, education, safety and protection in their homes, and on and on.
It hasn't worked that way, unfortunately, and every social welfare gain Americans have come to enjoy has been won at the cost of enormous struggle and even death, with all those who try to retain their wealth and privilege using the power of the press and other media they have owned — as well as the judges and courts and laws and police that they have for the most part controlled — to retard or forestall that progress.
That those reactionary forces have been able to distort the thinking of good folks such as yourself, so that you become their servants, and help them to retain their privileged positions, instead of recognizing where your real interests lie, is, I think, terribly sad.
NOW.... (on just one of the points I raised), instead of simply accusing Social Security of being a "giant Ponzi scheme," how's about ANSWERING THE QUESTION: Do you want it to be dismantled? Would you rather NOT get Social Security benefits when they are due to you?
AND, if your answer is YES, what would you propose to replace it, to guarantee old age security for people when they retire?
I responded later to the Social Security Question:
It can't be dismantled because people have grown dependent upon it. That is how socialism works. Get the people hooked and it can't be taken away. As for me, I refuse to depend on it, and have been working on creating enough of a retirement for myself and my wife to not need the government program.
As for the rest:
Strong centralized federal government control is never a good idea. The Constitution was written to limit the size of the federal government, and was a very wise thing to do. Such thinking has resulted in the U.S. being a very prosperous nation for over 200 years. Systems as you propose have failed over and over for a reason. Liberty over government control, and a free market over government mandates. I believe in individualism, not collectivism - and I believe that way because of THINKING.
Dan then became apologetic, because remember, Liberals are sometimes terribly afraid to offend, and then goes on to distort history as the Left loves to do:
I sincerely apologize for suggesting that you weren't thinking. What I should have said is that you've let a lot of wrongheaded and distorted ideas INFLUENCE your thinking.
You point out that the U.S. has been a "very prosperous nation for over 200 years." Indeed it has. WITH a centralized federal government, mind you. But also with a lot of powers relegated to the states; powers that for years prevented (and in many cases continue to prevent) real progress for their citizens, because many states still have backward thinking governments in power.
The Constitution was framed as it was during the late 1700s because of very PARTICULAR conditions prevailing at the time of its adoption — not because the framers were opposed to a strong central government. The country had just come out of a revolutionary war, if you'll recall. Even getting the various territories that became states to hang together on BEHALF of that revolution was an enormous task. One third of the people living then were in favor of separating from England. Another third were in favor of remaining WITH England. And the final third didn't give a damn. That's history.
You also had the southern half of the country owning slaves. You had all kinds of different local and regional demands that had to be adjudicated in order for there to be cooperation. So compromises were made. In fact, if you'll recall, the division of certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states was called "The Great Compromise." If they had not had the problems they did during that period, there would have been no reason to UNITE the states, and thus name the country, THE UNITED STATES. There would probably have been no states, in fact, just one nation, with different departments or regions (like we have here in France... a strong central government, but also with lots of local autonomy in certain areas.)
Which system with strong central governments are you talking about that have failed? Sure, you can name a few.... Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler.... In terms of overall quality of life (which includes, of course, prosperity of the citizens), the latest ratings for the world's top countries are (from the best on down, and all of which, including the US, have been going strong, in spite of their many problems)....
Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, France (was #1 until recently, but has slipped because of high unemployment), Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, Finland, United States (#13), Austria, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Liechtenstein, New Zealand. And guess what? ALL (except the U.S.) have one strong central government, and ALL (except the U.S. have strong, government-run health plans.
And who is THE highest rated country or countries in the world in terms of literacy? One guess: Cuba, Estonia and Poland (a tie for first). Second? Barbados, the tiny all black island in the Caribbean. (The US is #17). All with strong, centralized federal governments. (And yes, Cuba is still dictatorial).
Who is top rated in the world for health care? Now it's Japan (used to be France)... then come Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, Germany, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, UK, Denmark, and .... ta da..... the U.S. (#16... and some rankings put the US as #37 !) Again, ALL with strong, centralized federal governments.
You want me to go on? I can if you like, but I think you get the idea.
If you want to have a genuine discussion, Doug, that would be fine with me. But you'd need to offer me reasoned thinking and examples, not just a series of catch phrases and vague platitudes, like "Strong centralized federal government is never a good idea."
----Well, time constraints don't give me a lot of time to respond to each individual point, so I responded to the ones that barked the loudest, keeping in mind to address the rest later:
The difference is that you believe in social welfare benefits, and I don't. I believe the individual should be the navigator of their lives. I believe that when government is given the kind of power that you suggest they should have, human nature dictates that those in power will become corrupt with that power, and the citizens will become complacent because of their dependency on government. The elitists in government become more powerful, and the citizen loses liberty - and actually do not mind because they think the government is taking care of them. We are all created equal, but what we do with what we have, the breaks we get, et cetera, is very different, and some will emerge as more successful as others. If those that were not successful don't like it, in a free society they have the option to keep trying. Such is the beauty of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe the U.S. Constitution is outdated, or was written only for the circumstances of revolution. Limiting government's size and power is an ageless necessity, learned by the founding fathers from studying history. They took five months to write the document, so it was not a willy-nilly endeavor. Following it, we have prospered as the greatest nation on Earth for 233 years - so why would we want to change the American Form of Government? In fact, our biggest problems arise out of too much government interference.
State sovereignty is important because the state governments are more local to the people. Who better to govern local issues than local government? Why would I want a faceless bureaucrat in Washington making decisions about my region that he does not understand?
As for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I hear this a lot from liberals. Funny thing is, I have no idea what those two say. Glenn Beck comes on at 2pm while I am at work, and 11pm while I am asleep. Rush is on from 9-12, also during which time I work. Therefore, I do not get the opportunity to hear what they say. I occassionally catch bits here and there, or see a You Tube, for for the most part, I don't catch their shows. Also, I watch very little, if any, television. So I don't watch the other voices either. I get all of my news from the local papers, LA Times, NY Times, internet, and my military friends and family. I have studied the U.S. Constitution extensively, and I spend a lot of time reading my Bible, and historical documents like Madison's Notes on the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and books written by the folks that are guests on my radio show. My opinion is my own, and I derive all of my thoughts based on the facts that I gather.
As for the centralized government, it became moreso after 1913, and that is a part of what brought about the Great Depression. Then, FDR came along and forced his New Deal on the people, and the policies of FDR extended the depression. Many believe it was the war that pulled us out of the depression, but it was really the entreprenurial spirit of the American People after the war that did it. A Free Market Capitalistic Economy, when left alone by government, always produces prosperity.
During Carter, many of what is going on today was in force, and we wound up in a deep recession. Reagan's tax cuts and policies that reduced the burden on business pulled us out of the recession, and resulted in a prosperous period that lasted all the way through Clinton's years. The Democrats demonized Bush for the recent downturn, but if you look at it, during Bush's years consumer spending was up, the unemployment rate was breaking records below 5%, and despite an attack on the U.S. in 2001 (which normally would cause economic hardships), we prospered. The downturn resulted in decades of liberal policies, and government intervention in the markets through the GSE's and the CRA of 1977.
In 2004 Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, among other liberals, were arguing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can't fail when Bush and the Congressional Republicans were calling for new regulations, and warning that a mortgage crisis was on the horizon. Then, when the crisis happened, the Democrats blamed it on the Republicans, and sheep like the Obama voters believed it. If anyone parrots the media, it is the Democrat voters.
I appreciate your opinion, and I knew when I responded we would disagree. After all, you were heavily influenced by your father's politics. But if Marxist ideology is so good, why does it fail every time it is tried? Part of the answer is that it doesn't take into consideration human nature. Rather than being punished for succeeding, and rewarded for failure, humanity wishes to be incentivized. Taxing the rich and handing out welfare is punishing success and rewarding failure. Instead, why don't we back government off of businesses, create incentives for the poor to become more involved, and to work, and remove the over-regulation on businesses so that they can grow, which would result in a greater movement of products, and a creation of jobs?
Socialized medicine, cap and trade, and other liberal policies remove choice from the individual - and that means less liberty. In my opinion, that is not what America stands for. Folks like you criticize America's past, as if it embarrasses you. It is as if America's exceptionalism bothers you.
I see America as Reagan did - a shining beacon of freedom on the hill, for all to take advantage of if only they are willing to pursue it with hard work, and the American Spirit.
--- and there is still more to come.
Oh, and to answer another question that may be on a few minds, those dozen of you liberal readers of Political Pistachio that think every time I write about "that liberal" I am not usually talking about you. Your arrogance and narcissism is only surpassed by the liberals in power.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Posts
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2520(500).jpg)
