The New Surge

Take a look at the latest RealClearPolitics polls.   Talk about a stunning comeback.  This election was all but over two weeks ago.  Today is a new day.  The Dems and their minions continue to pile on with personal attacks against the Palin family, which only adds fuel to the McCain surge by building public sympathy for the Palins and arousing anger against the Obama camp.  Biden continues to insert his foot in his mouth, and it seems to be rubbing off on Obama now with his latest pig and fish gaffe.

USA Today has McCain up by 10 points.  If this holds through November, this surge will be the fastest and most remarkable turn around in modern American political history (eclipsing Clinton in 92), in my opinion.

Comments

[Rob Ryan]

Does the term "dead cat bounce" mean anything to you? You certainly are an optimistic man, but I think your predictive powers are weak. I remember your enthusiasm for Huckabee.

The "gaffe" you refer to was nothing of the kind. McCain used the same phrase with regard to Hillary Clinton, and no one accused him of sexism. Obama has used the phrase many times. Everyone knows what it means. The charge is ridiculous, and you can safely bet that no apology will be forthcoming, nor should it.

[Matt]

Hearing those on the left continually deriding Palin and telling everyone how much she sucks and was a desperate choice and etc just leads to to believe more and more that she was a fantastic choice.

I don't hear many on the right constantly going after Biden and that's precisely because they don't really have to. He was already a poor choice they don't have to work hard to convince anyone of that fact.

[tgirsch]

I'm just curious: What are these supposed "personal attacks" that she keeps being on the receiving end of? And how is it that those attacks are bad, but the persistent personal attacks against Obama are acceptable to you.

It seems to me that you're applying an egregious double-standard here, and the sad part is, you can't even see it.

[tgirsch]

I don't know why you say "the race was all but over" two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Obama was only up by 1.8.

In any case, if McCain wins this year, it will even further advance the prominence of negative politics. All they're doing any more is attacking. We're not hearing anything at all about what they'll actually do. McCain's policy proposals are generally as vague as one can imagine.

I find it difficult to understand how Christians can rally behind a candidate who continues to mount disingenuous attack after disingenuous attack with little substance. Doesn't seem very Christian to me.

[Mr. D]

"The "gaffe" you refer to was nothing of the kind. McCain used the same phrase with regard to Hillary Clinton, and no one accused him of sexism."

I have only a one word response to this comment.

Macaca.

[Rob Ryan]

That's not much of a response. It fails to address both how a reference to McCain's policies is an attack on Palin and why it is OK for McCain to use it in reference to Hillary Clinton's policies.

[tgirsch]

I have only a one word response to this comment.

Macaca.

Yes, because a folksy metaphor frequently used by both campaigns is precisely the same thing as something which sounds a lot like -- and actually turns out to be -- an ethnic slur.

"Macaca" was a memorably foolish moment for Allen, but it's not why he lost.

As for why Palin's been getting so much attention over the last couple of weeks, it's because prior to her being named, nobody really knew anything about her. Now we know that she's willing to blatantly lie about her record for political gain, and that self-described Christians don't mind this sort of false witness one bit.

[matt curtis]

For good or bad, the entry of Palin into the race has certainly changed the dynamic. There are a lot of Republicans who are now more energized and motivated to vote for McCain. Will this excitement result in McCain receiving more votes than he would have otherwise? I've got to believe it will, but that may change if Palin does poorly in the debates. Will Palin attract some voters who originally backed Hillary and might have ended up casting a vote for Obama? I think she probably will.

Many in the Obama camp and the media have ridiculed the latter proposition by taking pretended offense at the idea that some voters might vote for Palin because she is a woman. It's unfortunate, but undoubtedly true, that some will do just that. However, the assertion that none of Hillary's supporters would switch their support to a staunchly pro-life, traditional values, female candidate rests on an unproven and dubious assumption: that all of Hillary's supporters voted for her because she was pro-choice and the more typical feminist.

Undoubtedly, among the ranks of Hillary's supporters, were voters, men and women, who were either pro-life or undecided on that issue but who felt that Hillary was someone who would fight for them. Some of these voters will likely conclude that Palin is someone who will fight for them and who understands them and knows what they aspire to and what burdens they bear.

It's not a zero-sum game as the Obama camp and others have suggested; it's not the case that either none or all of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain and Palin. Rather, it is a question whether enough of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain/Palin to change the outcome of the election.

I am anxious to see Palin outside of a speech. I would like to see more question and answer sessions with all of the candidates and I would like to see true debates. Some of the reporting of Palin has been beyond the pale: the unfounded charges that her daughter was the actual mother of Palin's youngest son or that Palin at one time belonged to an Alaskan political party that favored seccession. Some of it has been legitimate: was her change on the Bridge to Nowhere politically motivated, did she successfully lobby for earmarks for her town of Wasilla, and has her experience and record qualified her for the Vice Presidency?

What has disturbed me about the investigative zeal shown by so many with respect to Palin is that that same zeal has been largely absent with respect to Obama. Who, besides a few conservative journalists and commentators, has really questioned Obama concerning his associations, his community organizing work, his record in the Illinois or U.S. Senate, and the practical implications of his proposals?

Moreover, the tone of the reporting following the Republican Convention was markedly different than the reporting following the Democratic Convention. Over and over during the Democratic convention, I heard speaker after speaker criticize McCain for being out of touch or that "he just doesn't get it." How many one-liners about the number of houses McCain owns (often by those who undoubtedly own multiple homes) or about the middle class being anyone earning less than $5 million a year (did this honestly characterize McCain's statement?)? And what happened after McCain picked Palin as his runningmate? The first quips from the Obama campaign were questions about Palin's experience as a mayor of a town of 9000, or as a governor of a state with more caribou than people.

Then, Palin and Guliani questioned Obama's work as a community organizer with a number of one-liners. The reaction of much of the media and the Obama campaign was that the Republicans had really gone on the attack and were engaging in personal attacks. Frankly, I saw no difference in the tone of the two conventions and, overall, saw little to no substance.

Now we're in a cycle where Obama pretends righteous indignation at questions about his associations, his voting record, or his experience as a community organizer. McCain and Palin pretend to take offense at all of the inquiry into her background and about pigs in makeup. And people on both sides get worked into a frenzy where they are blinded by their own unquestioning belief and hypocrisy.

There are a lot of substantive questions that need to be asked of the candidates and there are legitimate questions and concerns about all of them. Are any of the candidates qualified to lead this country? Should we be concerned about McCain's role in the Keating Five? Should we be concerned about Obama's associations and whether he is concealing a far more radical agenda? Should we be concerned that Palin is not the reformer she claims to be? Should we be concerned that Biden lacks integrity? These and many others are legitimate questions.

Can we on this blog elevate the debate?

[Mr. D]

Rob,

RE: Macaca

http://www.mrdawntreader.com/the_dawn_treader/2007/05/you_tube_politi.html

RE: Obama's gaffe

Obama's words were taken the wrong way by his immediate audience, regardless of how he intended it. The polite thing to do is to say, "folks, lest I be misunderstood, I am not calling anyone a pig ..."

You are asking us to believe Obama is so naive and inept that he had no clue what was going on with his audience.

I am not buying it.

[Vinny]

Obama's words were taken the wrong way by his immediate audience, regardless of how he intended it.

Give me a break. The news programs showed McCain using the same phrase a half dozen times in the last few years and his audience laughed every time. You have no justification for claiming that Obama's audience understood it any other way than the way it was intended or that he should have thought they were taking it the wrong way.

Some of the reporting of Palin has been beyond the pale: the unfounded charges that her daughter was the actual mother of Palin's youngest son or that Palin at one time belonged to an Alaskan political party that favored seccession.

I fully agree with you about the claims about Palin's daughter, but I don't think that reports about the Alaska Independence Party were particularly egregious. Her husband was a member of the party for several years and the party's chair originally reported that Palin had been a member but later retracted the statement saying she had gotten inaccurate informations from someone else within the party. It sounds to me that there was a legitimate basis for the original story although it was no doubt blown out of proportion thereafter.

[Rob Ryan]

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

You assume you know what the audience was thinking. You assume that they all thought Obama was calling Palin a pig. I very much doubt that. I heard the audio, and the tittering that follows Obama's comment probably reflects a variety of individual responses to his use of that cliche. My own reaction was amusement at his clever use of that phrase in that it clearly referred to McCain's policies and, at the same time, wryly alluded to Palin's pit bull quip. Only an idiot could have really believed he was calling Palin a pig, because the context is so clear. Maybe there were some idiots in that audience; most probably have a few. That is not Obama's problem.

Just because Republicans assume people are stupid ("I said "thanks, but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere") doesn't mean Obama has to make the same assumption.

[tgirsch]

matt curtis:
However, the assertion that none of Hillary's supporters would switch their support to a staunchly pro-life, traditional values, female candidate rests on an unproven and dubious assumption: that all of Hillary's supporters voted for her because she was pro-choice and the more typical feminist.

I don't think that's entirely accurate, but it's a better framing than what I usually see. What surprises (and concerns me) is how deeply irrational it is for a Clinton supporter to choose McCain over Obama. I honestly cannot name even two policies where McCain's stated position is closer to Clinton's than Obama's. The only reason I could come up with for a Clinton supporter to vote McCain is out of spite. If there's an issues-based reason to do so, I can't think of it.

Rather, it is a question whether enough of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain/Palin to change the outcome of the election.

I still think that answer is probably "no." It seems to me that the primary impact of naming Palin has been re-energizing the base, not attracting moderates and undecideds. I remain open to being convinced otherwise, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence to date that this is the case.

Some of the reporting of Palin has been beyond the pale: the unfounded charges that her daughter was the actual mother of Palin's youngest son or that Palin at one time belonged to an Alaskan political party that favored seccession.

I agree with you on the former, but am more of a wait-and-see mind on the latter. Of course, in the former case, no serious news agency reported any such thing. Internet rumors sprouted up about it, and it was the McCain campaign who gave those rumors national prominence by repeatedly using them to deflect legitimate criticism of their veep pick -- it was always the McCain campaign, and not the national press, who brought up those allegations.

As for the AIP, it's true that she was never officially a member, but that doesn't mean her ties to the party are insignificant. Was she pandering? Almost certainly. But when you're trying to present the image of someone who's above that sort of thing, as Palin is, then it becomes a legitimate concern. Still, I agree that there are more important issues, including the ones you explicitly listed.

What has disturbed me about the investigative zeal shown by so many with respect to Palin is that that same zeal has been largely absent with respect to Obama.

As I mentioned above, much of this has to do with her status as a relative unknown, along with her tendency to make (and repeat) demonstrably false statements. As for Obama, perhaps you have a short memory, but he got absolutely eviscerated -- and not just by "conservative journalists" -- on the whole Reverend Wright thing, with several weeks of terrible press as a result.

Frankly, I saw no difference in the tone of the two conventions and, overall, saw little to no substance.

Non-partisan FactCheck disagrees. :)

These and many others are legitimate questions.

One of those unusual occurrences where we agree. :) I know my biases are showing through, but it has seemed to me that the McCain campaign has been far more eager to avoid substance -- notice, most recently, their faux-outrage over the "lipstick on a pig" remark.

I'd be curious to see if anyone has done an analysis of the ads McCain is running versus the ads Obama is running -- how many are pro-their-own-candidate vs. how many are anti-the-other-candidate, and how many of them actually address substance rather than engage in personal attacks. It seems to me that McCain would score worse on these marks, but I'd like to see someone do an objective analysis.

Mr. D:

Obama was obviously riffing off of Palin's pit bull joke, but at the same time he was obviously not calling Palin a pig -- I've seen plenty of people on both the left and right acknowledge this simple truth.

In any case, I think Obama's response was entirely appropriate.

[Paul]

Matt - excellent post, even if I disagree with a few details. Well done!

Mr D - I agree the polite thing to do is as you suggest. Judging by the pause half way through the analogy, I suspect that was one of the options he considered once he realized what he'd stumbled into. Unfortunately I think we both know that he couldn't do that - any move to explain or excuse any comment like this, by either side, would be seized on with even greater fervor than it already has been. I was about to say that it's sad we've come to this, but I've the feeling we've always been here.

[NIck]

I have no idea who is going to win this election.

But what I find most fascinating about Palin as VP and this election in general is that a large chunk of the culture wars seems to be over. The liberals and feminists have won so thoroughly that conservatives don't seem to have noticed that they have almost completely adopted their erstwhile opponents positions. If McCain wins, we will have a female VP, a woman who will become commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces in the not unlikely event that the president succumbs to old age. Am I the only one who remembers when conservatives were deeply conflicted about female leadership in politics and the military?

We now have conservatives vigorously defending the right of a mother with young children to work a very demanding full time job that will inevitably take her away from her family. Once upon a time, only radical bra-burning feminists would have supported such a thing. Currently, the only live conflict in the role-of-women portion of the culture war seems to be abortion.

The sexual orientation side of the culture war seems to be going the same way. Once upon a time gays were the bugbears trotted out at Republican conventions to serve as easy targets. This year, they were hardly mentioned. More and more conservatives seem to be drifting towards support for civil unions and gays serving openly in the military.

I half wonder if this process might continue more rapidly under a McCain-Palin administration. Under Obama's leadership, conservatives would set themselves up in opposition. Under a republican, they may not notice that they are continuing to drift towards liberalism.

Either way, this is an interesting election.

[Mr. D]

Thought provoking comment, Nick.

I recently read an article where a lefty feminist called Sarah Palin a feminist, so I think your point is well taken.

It is not exactly clear to me what constitutes the culture war, btw. The term is thrown around, of course, but I am not really sure I know what it means. I assume it means the sum total of issues about which politically active social conservatives disagree with politically active social liberals...

I am more tuned into the Christ and culture categories ( Niebuhr's classic work on Christ and Culture).

In many evangelical circles, there remains a strong "Christ against culture" mentality that gets passed from generation to generation. The "against culture" Christians are not necessarily politically active ... but the "us versus them" heart attitude is very strong.

[Nick]

Mr D:
It is not exactly clear to me what constitutes the culture war, btw. The term is thrown around, of course, but I am not really sure I know what it means. I assume it means the sum total of issues about which politically active social conservatives disagree with politically active social liberals...

Yeah, I guess that's more or less how I was using the term, thinking about social conservatives vs. social liberals rather than Christians vs. worldly culture. It's not a particularly precise term, but I think people tend to use it to describe the social conflict and upheaval starting more or less in the 1960s and continuing until today. Does that sound about right?

In many evangelical circles, there remains a strong "Christ against culture" mentality that gets passed from generation to generation. The "against culture" Christians are not necessarily politically active ... but the "us versus them" heart attitude is very strong.

I've never read the Niebuhr, but the summary on Wikipedia makes it look worthwhile. I would guess that people in my church tend more towards "Christ transforming culture" than "Christ against culture. That doesn't mean they are politically active though. I know several who don't vote and argue that Christians shouldn't vote.

[matt curtis]

Tom,

First, with respect to Hillary issues voters, I agree that Clinton and Obama appear far closer on the issues than Clinton and McCain. If all of Hillary's voters were simply voting for her on the issues then it stands to reason that they would have little incentive to choose McCain over Obama. I don't think, however, that we should assume that all of these voters were choosing Hillary over Obama because of the issues. In fact, as you and I agree, their stated positions are very similar. Consequently, I think we can safely assume that some number of them chose Clinton over Obama because she is a woman, some because they had a history on which to judge her, and some because they did not like Obama, did not trust him, or did not have an Obama record on which they could rely. In short, McCain and Clinton are both known quantities; Obama is not.

I expect that many voters question, for good reason, who Obama is and where he really stands. Now, Obama's stated positions are enough to make me vote against him and to vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils. However, I suspect that there are many voters, some of whom might have been Hillary voters and more aligned with Clinton's and Obama's stated positions, who distrust Obama. Some of Hillary's voters who may have thought McCain was not liberal enough to choose him over Hillary, may at the same time think that Obama is too liberal to choose him over McCain. Moreover (although I can't explain the "how"), Hillary was able to connect with blue collar Reagan Democrats and I suspect that Biden is even better able to do that. Obama, on the other hand, has far greater difficulty doing that than any of the other three candidates in the race - at least based on what I've seen so far.

Obama certainly got questioned on the Rev. Wright issue, but I would hardly characterize it as "eviscerated". Additionally, it took a long time before that story was even reported by traditional media outlets and I don't recall the last time it came up in those media outlets. Aside from that, you would agree, wouldn't you, that Obama's association with Rev. Wright is relevant to this campaign? Certainly Palin's association, if any, with the Alaskan Independence Party potentially provides us with some information on what she thinks and, therefore, on how she might act as VP or President.

If you watched both conventions, then I really don't see how you could disagree with my statement that the tone of both was very similar in substance and degree. I recognize that "FactCheck.org" concluded otherwise, but do you have any idea what their methodology was? Is there even any way to objectively measure the tone? And where's the "nonpartisan" come from? Who accords that designation and how? Show me someone who is "non-partisan", and I'll show you someone who lacks conviction. Always think objectively but at least be willing to make a decision.

As far as your question about how many ads actually address substance, I'd hazard a guess that on this score the McCain and Obama campaigns are in a dead heat: 0 to 0. Then again, substance to me means more than making promises about what you'll do, even if those promises contain specifics (e.g. reduce income taxes for 95% of Americans - interesting question: how many Americans currently pay no income taxes or already receive more back than they pay in?). To me, substance is more about explaining why you think something and how and why what you're proposing will work. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama has proposed more programs than McCain has and if that satisfies your definition of "substance" then Obama is undoubtedly the king of substance. Of course, that's one of the many reasons I'll vote against him; I think there should be far fewer programs and we need new ways for the government to spend money like we need water to put out a grease fire. (Can I get a doctor here?)

[Susannah]

I think Nick is right; I think conservatives are on the defensive in the "culture war," and I think the educational system is the key component in the battle that has turned the tide left-ward.

Re: substance...Ads don't address substance because that would make for a mighty boring ad. Negative advertising works...period. That's why they *all* do it (hope 'n change notwithstanding).

I'm no McCainiac. I was put off by portions of his speech at the convention. I do, however, envision his pugnaciousness coming in handy if and when he decided to make good on those promises about earmarks. (Trouble is, he claims lots of those earmark-ers as friends.)

I agree that Obama's many programs sound off-the-cuff and read "more government of the worst kind" to me. He doesn't say how he'll pay for these goodies offered in exchange for votes because he doesn't know how he will. Nobody ever talks about the loss of freedom of choice involved in universal health care. It sounds like the same old tired class warfare, condescension (we're the govt. & we're here to help), and bubble-headedness regarding the unforeseen consequences of hamstringing the economy even further. Tax the producers! Penalize the employers! Great idea.

I don't expect much from McCain, but our slide down the slope to socialism will at least be slowed a little bit. I do see dire, irreversible consequences from an Obama presidency (government ballooning, Congressional spending gone wild, tanking economy, and justices who fancy themselves legislators, to name a few).

[tgirsch]

matt curtis:

I'm not sure I buy the "known commodity" versus "unknown commodity" argument, unless you mean it only on the very superficial level of "I've known who this person is longer." Because for a Hillary supporter, McCain wouldn't just be a known commodity; he'd be a known opponent.

Moving on, you seem to continue to question whether or not Obama will really continue to advocate for his stated policies, and I'm not entirely sure why you would think that.

You say that Clinton voters may not trust him "with good reason," but the only major area I'm aware of where Obama has shifted is on FISA, and I've repeatedly criticized him for that. The problem there is, he shifted AWAY from the right position and TOWARD the position that his opponent, McCain, has been advocating all along. Obama also flipped on public campaign financing, but I seriously doubt that factors in to the decision-making of many Clinton supporters.

If there's someone in this campaign who has shifted dramatically on issues of import, it's McCain. From Afghanistan to making the tax cuts permanent to the social security tax cap to privatization to saying he'd vote against a bill that he himself wrote, McCain has been the moving target on many issues..

[Frankly, if he reverted back to 2004 McCain instead of 2008 McCain, he probably wouldn't be all that bad.]

So I certainly understand why you wouldn't agree with Obama on policy, and why you'd hate virtually all of his proposals, but I don't understand why you think Obama is the one who's somehow being more unprincipled of the two.

Regarding "non-partisan," I find it both insulting and highly cynical that you think any organization without an explicit partisan bent somehow "lacks conviction." FactCheck.org has a strong conviction to verifying and reporting on the veracity of claims that politicians make, no matter what party those politicians represent. They've wasted no time, and pulled no punches, in criticizing both sides when they make false statement. Perhaps you can find a partisan motive in there (heck, I can, too: the truth does not favor Republicans, therefore exposing the truth reveals liberal bias...). Suffice it to say that conservatives and liberals alike rely on and trust FactCheck's analysis. If you don't like them, try PolitiFact.com instead -- I found them approvingly cited in the National Review, which might be more your speed.

Finally, on substance, for me it comes down to details. Who's making more detailed, serious policy proposals? Whose plan has more specifics?

Then, you analyze those specifics. Whose tax plan is more fiscally irresponsible? (Neither can be described as "responsible" -- see summary table 1 of this PDF). Whose tax plan is more beneficial to the majority of Americans, including those who need it most (see Figure 1 of same PDF). If you care at all about fiscal responsibility, one plan is clearly worlds worse than the other (unless your definition of "fiscal responsibility" solely means "lower taxes" with no regard to balancing budgets).

Or, you can go with a more shorthand way of determining substance. When one guy spells out his vision for the direction the country should be moving in, while the other guy reminds us about his biography, I think it's pretty clear who's running on substance. (And I think that's why, if McCain wins, it will be because people voted against Obama, not because they voted for McCain -- as Susannah confirms in her comment.)

Susannah:

I don't think you can pin it on the educational system, at least not directly. I think the primary thing to blame is simply exposure. As more people are exposed to gays (for example) and realize that they're just ordinary (if different) people who have many of the same hopes and desires as everyone else, and who aren't out to destroy your family or turn everyone gay, homophobia loses its effect, and homosexuality becomes more accepted. People don't learn that gays are okay in school (well, I sure didn't). I learned it by meeting actual gay people (often not knowing at first that they were gay), and finding out through experience that I had a lot more in common with them than not.

Now, I used homosexuality as an example, but the same thing applies to any number of forms of prejudice and bigotry, whether it's against minorities, or working moms, or what have you. The point is, people don't change their views on these things because they heard in a classroom that they're supposed to believe a certain way. They change their views because of their life experiences. It reminds me of my favorite Mark Twain quote:

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, all foes to true understanding. Likewise tolerance, or broad, wholesome charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in our little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.

I agree with you, however, on the negative ads. It's a sad truth that we live in a sound bite society, and that makes substance very hard to convey. That doesn't mean that there aren't ... umm ... substantive differences below the covers, for those who are willing to look.

As for "how he'll pay," I suggest you look at the tax plan comparison I linked above. You're right that Obama's plan falls well short of paying for the "goodies," but McCain manages to give us substantially bigger deficits, without giving us any sort of goodies (unless you're in the top 5% of incomes, in which case you get a substantially lower tax bill).

On health care, at this point I'm not sure that even fully state-controlled health care would offer much less choice than what we have today. Unless you're extremely well-to-do, you're locked in to whatever health care plan your employer (or spouse's employer) offers, and that plan almost certainly restricts you to certain providers and requires that explicit permission be obtained before covering anything but the most basic services.

As to "congressional spending going wild," it's worth noting that federal spending has increased by a whopping 63% during the Bush presidency (from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.1 trillion proposed by the president for 2009), and the GOP controlled the Congress for most of that time. By way of comparison, that rate of growth in spending is more than double the spending increases we saw during the eight years of the Clinton administration (32%). St. Reagan even managed to outdo W, increasing federal spending by almost 69% during his 8-year term.

Don't like dollar figures? How about spending as a percentage of GDP? Under Reagan, it hovered between 9 and 10%. Under Clinton, it reached the lowest level it had ever been at in modern history, 6.3% in 1999 and 2000. Under Bush, it's creeping back up to the 8% range.

You're right that there's a substantive difference between the two parties on spending and deficits, but you're wrong about who the "bad guys" are.

Finally, on the "slide down" to socialism, I'm not sure why so many Christians are so vehemently opposed to this. Jesus himself was pretty clearly a socialist.

[Vinny]

For all the conservatives who bemoan the alleged “government handouts” favored by liberals, I would like to raise one question: how many of the rich people (whose tax breaks you wish to preserve) owe their fortunes to the government? Going all the way back to the speculators of the late 18th century who made fortunes buying Revolutionary War bonds issued by the states at deep discounts before they were assumed by Alexander Hamilton’s 1st Bank of the United States, many of the biggest fortunes in this country were derived from doing business with the government or influencing government policy. Banking fortunes have always benefited greatly from dealing in government bonds. The DuPont fortune goes back to selling munitions to the Union Army during the Civil War. The railroad fortunes of the 19th century depended on government land grants and government financing. The steel fortunes depended on federal troops to break strikes. Throughout the 20th century, the government of the United States toppled foreign governments from Iran to Guatemala to Chile in order to protect the interests of corporations. When it comes to getting the government to do things for them, the rich have always been much more successful than the poor.

I'm still a capitalist; I'm just not a naive capitalist.

My point was that our educational system no longer has as its goal virtuous people who are able to think independently and *govern themselves,* and instead adheres to a pragmatic philosophy of workforce production (at its best) or simply indoctrinates with left-wing ideology (at its worst--higher ed. in particular). Hence, we wind up with people, like you, who are unable to discern the dangers to freedom that are endemic to collectivism.

I could argue back and forth all day on the dangers of socialized health care, high taxes, and out-of-control governmental growth and spending. All you have to do, though, is take a gander at the demise of free speech under Canadian leftism, or the limits placed on individual liberty under the UK nanny-state, or the high unemployment in European countries (where companies cannot *afford* to hire new people), to get a taste of it.

In fact, a friend of ours had a parent *die* while waiting, waiting, waiting for treatment while trapped in Canada's "humane" health care system. Do we really want to entrust our health care decisions to a government that literally counts on a number of us to die before collecting SS benefits? To whom do we appeal then, when the government decides, "You're not worth the investment--too old, fat, sick, etc."?

The essential difference between the parties (at least what *used* to be the difference) is that one looks to the government to be our savior, while the other views concentrated power in the hands of the few with distrust. Nowadays, though, too many Republicans are sort of Dem-lite, which is discouraging to conservatives like me, and the underlying reason for many of the things you complain of happening under the Bush admin. Believe me, I've griped too.

When has government ever solved a *single* societal problem? When? We're still warring on poverty. Jesus, that famous socialist (insert eyeroll here) once said in an offhand remark that we will always have the poor with us. Do we really expect to eradicate poverty by offering the poor a little free milk or cheese (after they jump through a bunch of privacy-invading hoops, of course)? By raising the minimum wage by fifty cents?

Take it from somebody who grew up poor. Handouts don't eliminate poverty. Just as education and prosperity don't eliminate hatred (just look at the fulminations of left-wing glitterati over the last ten days for evidence of that).

Just one single contrast between the candidates highlights the danger involved in a wrong choice.

Obama believes the attacks on 9/11 grew "out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." McCain saw it for what it was: "This is obviously an act of war that has been committed on the United States." I want somebody with unclouded vision as to his job description, who won't empathize with terrorists instead of *defending* the United States of America, as is entirely proper for the Commander-in-Chief to do.

I want somebody who is willing to say "enough is enough" to a profligate Congress! McCain is just pugnacious enough to do that, and to trim the fat from government rather than layering it on in some impossible messianic utopian vision (you know who I'm talking about here). My only concern about McCain is his tendency to go "Dem-lite" on us. So far, he's not talking that way, but his history is not good in terms of his association with Big Spenders.

[Susannah]

That last was me.

[Susannah]

P.S. I love how the left tries to co-opt a Jesus they don't even believe in.

Jesus wasn't concerned about filling your belly via the government or any other means, and he told you not to be concerned about it either. Matthew 6:25-34, John 6:25ff, just for starters, should disabuse you of that notion, and clue you into what he was really about. He did indeed heal and feed people out of compassion, but that makes him the opposite of a socialist. He did what the body of Christ now does: meet needs on a face-to-face level, as testimony of the Father's love--*not* as an arm of the government.

(One reason I'm not into the "faith based initiatives" idea, in fact.)

[Vinny]

P.S. I love how the left tries to co-opt a Jesus they don't even believe in.

I love how the right insists that the only Jesus that there is to believe in is the one that they believe in. The fact of the matter is that Jesus is reported to have said a lot of different things that are subject to a lot of of different interpretations. The right selects those things that fit their agenda and insist that it constitutes the only valid interpretation.

[Paul]

Obama believes the attacks on 9/11 grew "out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." McCain saw it for what it was: "This is obviously an act of war that has been committed on the United States."

You state these as though they are opposites. I sincerely hope that McCain thinks that this 'act of war' came out of something - the alternative is that bin Laden tossed a coin one morning and it came up 'attack America'. In fact I demand that he understand the motivations of the war. If you're attacked by a nation how you wage the war is relatively straightforward, but history has shown us that, if not impossible, it's at least incredibly difficult to bomb the terrorism out of your enemy. If, instead, you understand the 'why' you can work to undermine that, while still fighting a more traditional war where appropriate.

Let's not forget, as well, that McCain has described the conflict in Georgia as "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War". I'm not sure he's grasped the importance of the Islamic threat as much as you might wish.

[Vinny]

Obama believes the attacks on 9/11 grew "out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." McCain saw it for what it was: "This is obviously an act of war that has been committed on the United States.” I want somebody with unclouded vision as to his job description, who won't empathize with terrorists instead of defending the United States of America, as is entirely proper for the Commander-in-Chief to do.

It didn’t take any judgment to see 9/11 for what it was. The judgment comes in figuring out what motivated the attackers and crafting the best response. An unprovoked attack on the only secular government in the Persian Gulf certainly wasn’t it. The War in Iraq turned into a recruiting bonanza for jihadists because our leaders embraced mindless slogans like “they hate our freedom” rather than trying to figure out what was really going on.

[tgirsch]

Susannah:

Maybe you're looking back through rose-colored glasses at an educational system that never really existed.

Otherwise, you've done an excellent job of cramming a lot of Sean Hannity's right-wing talking points into a single comment.

For starters, if you think free speech is "dead" in Canada, I suggest you spend more time there. Canadians are remarkably frank, I can assure you. Probably more so than Americans.

On health care, what happens to that same person in the US system, if they don't have insurance coverage? How many people die every year in the US from preventable illnesses because they can't afford proper care? I can guarantee you, it's a lot greater than zero. But how horrible it would be if the big, bad government reduced that number -- if they can't reduce it to zero, as the Canadians couldn't, then the whole thing must be fatally flawed, right?

To whom do we appeal then, when the government decides, "You're not worth the investment--too old, fat, sick, etc."?

News flash: WE are the government!

And you're right, hand outs don't do a whole lot. Too bad nobody's arguing for them. Set the straw man down, and why not argue about policies that people are actually advocating?

As for Jesus, just because I don't believe in him doesn't mean I don't know anything about him. I suppose you're completely unqualified to comment on the tooth fairy, what with you not believing in her, and all. Anyway, Matt 6:25 seems like an odd cite, considering that it's about as anti-American and anti-capitalist as you can get. It warns us against materialism, and American capitalism depends on materialism. Without it, our whole system falls down goes boom.

A huge portion of Jesus' teachings are all about concern for the poor and others less fortunate than we are -- taking care of "the least of these" -- yet somehow, conservative Christians have managed to adopt this contorted worldview in which Jesus would be horrified -- horrified, I tell you -- if we used our government as a tool to achieve those ends. (Unless, of course, we use the government as a tool to stop abortions, or to stop the icky gays from marrying or adopting, or to blow up heathens -- those uses of government are perfectly acceptable, just not helping the little guy. That would have made Jesus cry...

Jesus was about as down on wealth as anything, and yet conservative Christians are more than willing and able to look past that little character flaw of His. That whole "sell all you own and give the money to the poor" line, well he was obviously talking to someone else not us. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an 8th house to buy...

[Rob Ryan]

"P.S. I love how the left tries to co-opt a Jesus they don't even believe in."

1. Lots of folks on the left believe in Jesus.

2. Arguments need to appeal to the beliefs of the person being debated. Your belief in Jesus is more central to tgirsch's argun=ment than his.

"Obama believes the attacks on 9/11 grew "out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." McCain saw it for what it was: "This is obviously an act of war that has been committed on the United States." "

These perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps both men are right. I think it is important to look at causation as well as response when bad people do bad things. We want to prevent, as well as redress, events like 9/11. "They attack us because they hate our freedom" may be explanation enough for simpletons, but many intelligent people suspect there might be a little more to it than that. It might be more efficient in terms of lives and money to attack some root causes and not merely respond to their manifestations. Unfortunately, when one even suggests as much, one is likely to be characterized as "blaming America" or "empathizing with terrorists."

Case in point:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Left-wing paradise in the making.

[Susannah]

“It didn’t take any judgment to see 9/11 for what it was. The judgment comes in figuring out what motivated the attackers and crafting the best response. An unprovoked attack on the only secular government in the Persian Gulf certainly wasn’t it. The War in Iraq turned into a recruiting bonanza for jihadists because our leaders embraced mindless slogans like “they hate our freedom” rather than trying to figure out what was really going on.”

You and I have been listening to the same NPR programs, it seems. ;) Speaking of talking points… The attackers (obviously) were motivated by an extreme form of Islam that would have us all under Islamic law. I don't think we can capitulate to that just to appease them. Do you?

Hate to go over the basics again, but Saddam was a cruel dictator who gave aid and training space to the very group that attacked us. The only democracy in that region is Israel.

This purported “recruiting bonanza” seems to have worked in our favor, since our soldiers have killed and captured a great many of them on *that* soil before they could organize to attack ours again. Given that we’ve been attack-free for seven years, wouldn't that indicate we're focusing on the right areas?

I don’t listen to Hannity all that often…does he frequently expound often on the importance of returning to a classical education for the fullest development of human potential?

Free speech may not be quite dead in Canada, but it’s dying. They now have a commission (ostensibly a “human rights” commission) that has power to punish publications of which they do not approve.

See my link above for what’s happening in Great Britain. These are not developments toward a respect for individual human rights. Wouldn’t you agree?

You tell me…what happens to those not covered by insurance? Do hospitals turn them away? Seems to me they get treated regardless; or if they can’t afford insurance there are already some very generous (and expensive) state plans in place. (Having been one of those persons.)

“News flash: WE are the government!”

Try telling that to any of these guys when you want to wiggle around their regulations or rulings:

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

Anybody who believes the government would be better to deal with than one’s insurance agency has never watched his widowed mother struggle to get a straight answer from the SSA.

Free insurance isn’t a handout? That’s exactly what we’re talking about here. Using other people’s money to pay for your stuff. That’s a handout.

American capitalism is not synonymous with materialism, which is just another outgrowth of sinful human nature. “Capitalism” is actually a Marxian term disparaging economic freedom, and as such, they are synonymous. And economic freedom is *foundational* to self-determination and self-government. I really don’t see how I’m going wrong here. Is it possible you could disagree with that? Economic freedom does not depend on materialism. Can we agree that Americans enjoyed economic freedom long before Madison Avenue arose?

Are you saying it’s a sin to be wealthy? That the government should eliminate profit altogether, claim it all, and spend it as it sees fit? That the government is better qualified to make our economic decisions than are we? That the government should dictate property ownership? You stand in stark disagreement with the founders of our system of government, if so.

I’d be a little more willing to attend to “the least of these” co-opting if leftists demonstrated a more responsible hermeneutic--and beyond that, if they actually *did* stand up for the least of all, even those who can’t VOTE for them. The passage that you site actually has to do with the final judgment on *individuals* who have denied care to the faithful.

Do you believe God will judge you if you don’t speak up for persecuted Christians? Or, even granting your slip-shod interpretation, are you saying that Americans will be judged by God (“depart from me, you cursed”) if they don’t offer up their rightful earnings to the government to spend as it sees fit? And how would that injection of religion into politics be different from Jerry Falwell’s pronouncement of judgment, may I ask?

“That whole ‘sell all you own and give the money to the poor’...”

Jesus (who knew what was in an individual’s heart and what was just the right prescription for *that individual*) also said this: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

In other words, wealth is not the problem. Father, mother, wife, children etc. are not the problem. The problem resides in the HUMAN HEART. It’s called “sin.” Jesus came to fix that problem. Do you believe that? These are also his words:

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Do you believe that?

He also said this:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Do you believe that? If you do not believe *Jesus’ own testimony about himself,* then it is disingenuous of you to co-opt his words, wrench them from their proper context, and attempt to bludgeon his followers with them.

By the way, do you have retirement savings? Why? Do you own a home? Shouldn’t you be selling it, giving the money to the poor, and living like Jesus, an itinerant rabbi, did? If you really, honestly want us all to live just exactly the same life Jesus did, then lead by example. Of course, you shouldn’t. Nor would Jesus want you to. Why? You have a responsibility to those you must provide for. Just like every Christian does. Just like every American does. Our responsibility to our neighbor is *ours*. It’s irresponsible to try to shift that to the shoulders of government.

Abortion is a human rights issue, for those of us who care about it. It's not a religious issue. Gay marriage is a moral issue; it's about redefining the most basic unit of society (the family). Believe it or not, non-Christians also argue against these things on anthropological and common law grounds.

[Susannah]

"The only democracy in that region is Israel."

Used to be. ;)

[Susannah]

"Anyway, Matt 6:25 seems like an odd cite, considering that it's about as anti-American and anti-capitalist as you can get. It warns us against materialism"

Perhaps, but primarily it warns against *worry.* Those who wring their hands over "what-ifs" would do well to have "ears to hear."

I do at least have a basis for believing materialism is basically greed or distrust, thus sinful. On what basis can you say so? Your gut tells you that's the case? Why should I trust your gut over my divine revelation? Materialism is what people naturally embrace when they reject the Giver and turn away in rebellion.

It's not wrong to wear clothes, even nice clothes. It's not wrong to eat food, even good food. It *is* wrong to worry about those things, and yes, it's wrong to make them the focus of your life--but again, just as the the problem isn't mother, father, child, it is not with the material gift. It's in making the gift your idol. It's in worshipping created things rather than the Creator. We are to hold the things of earth, insofar as we do hold them (including family ties), lightly.

Jesus says we must trust our Heavenly Father, recognizing that He is the source of every "good and perfect gift." Nothing wrong with the gift at all, for as Jesus said: "all these things shall be ADDED UNTO YOU"---but the kingdom of God (righteousness, peace, and joy) should be our true realm of existence, and our Redeemer the axis around which our world revolves.

[Susannah]

It helps to remember that Jesus was speaking to people who had far less than we do, materially speaking. The choice was between having clothes or no clothes, having food or no food. He was reassuring them that the Heavenly Father, who clothes the flowers and feeds the birds, was more than capable and loving enough to meet their needs.

But yes, I think there is a secondary message against an inordinate focus on the material, for even the poor can harbor greed in their hearts. As I have previously noted, our problem lies in the heart, not in the hand.

[tgirsch]

Hate to go over the basics again, but Saddam was a cruel dictator who gave aid and training space to the very group that attacked us.

Umm, no, he didn't. There was no significant al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our invasion, and indeed, Saddam viewed al Qaeda as a threat. But why let the truth get in the way of a good talking point, right? Seriously, if you're going to debate this stuff, try to at least know what you're talking about!

You tell me…what happens to those not covered by insurance? Do hospitals turn them away?

If they check in to the emergency room, the hospital is required by law to treat them. Because emergency room care is so much more expensive than regular care, this has two impacts: it drives up the cost of care for paying customers (they have to recoup that money somehow), and it clogs up the emergency rooms with non-emergency patients. In any case, I doubt any good Christian could, in good conscience, advocate for "wait till it hurts, then go to the emergency room," but that seems to be exactly what McCain is advocating for.

Free insurance isn’t a handout?

Depends upon how one defines "free" and "handout," I guess. If everybody chips in for something that everybody needs, that's not what I'd call a "hand-out" (nor "free"). And that's what we're talking about here.

By your definition, public education is a hand-out, as are public roads and other infrastructure.

And economic freedom is *foundational* to self-determination and self-government.

Well, as long as everyone has it, sure. But what happens when the system inevitably devolves into oligarchy? When a large portion of the population doesn't really enjoy economic freedom, then by your logic, those people don't really have self-determination and self-government. So what do we do to fix that? Rely upon the benevolence of the wealthy to even things out a bit?

To me, economic freedom doesn't just mean a theoretical ability to work hard and get ahead; it means a practical ability to do that. And that means that anyone, including the poorest of the poor, should have access to quality education and quality health care. And anyone who's willing to work a full-time job should be paid a living wage for doing it. Yet for some reason I've never been able to figure out, social conservatives tend to be vehemently opposed to doing anything to ensure that kind of social justice. It's as if the ability to amass personal wealth is more important to them than social justice is.

That's not to say that I oppose wealth or hat the rich or any such thing. That's simply not the case. I just happen to agree that part of the price of becoming wealthy is that you bear a greater share of the responsibility towards ensuring social justice. If we doubled Bill Gates' taxes tomorrow, trust me, he'd still be plenty wealthy, and would continue to have more money than you and I could ever dream of.

(Ironically, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the richest men in the world, are in agreement that our tax structure isn't progressive enough, and that the super-wealthy should be paying more taxes, not less.)

Are you saying it’s a sin to be wealthy? That the government should eliminate profit altogether, claim it all, and spend it as it sees fit?

I'm not saying any such thing. But what I am saying is that self-described conservative Christians seem to do a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over issues which, at the end of the day, boil down to the protection of personal wealth -- something Jesus himself told us shouldn't be a great concern to us, and is actually an impediment to salvation!

I’d be a little more willing to attend to “the least of these” co-opting if leftists demonstrated a more responsible hermeneutic--and beyond that, if they actually *did* stand up for the least of all, even those who can’t VOTE for them.

I can't speak for the cartoonishly-lumped-together "leftists" other than myself, but I can assure you that the policies I advocate mean higher taxes for me personally. I'd just rather spend that money on social justice at home rather than on corporate welfare and unjust wars. And as for the "least of all," I'm in favor of health care for everyone, including pregnant women and newborns (rather than just the wealthy ones). [I know what you're really talking about here, but this debate isn't about that, and I'm not about to let us get sidetracked on that issue -- suffice it to say it's pretty safe to assume that some number of women who currently did that wouldn't do so if they knew the medical bills would be taken care of...]

Do you believe that?

It doesn't matter what I believe, in the context of this discussion. What matters is what he said, and because you profess to believe in Him (and His perfect nature), it's fair to try to discern whether or not you're cherry-picking which of His teachings to follow, and which to de-emphasize or ignore.

If I cite Jesus' teachings wrongly, and present a teaching as meaning something other than what it actually means, then that's certainly fair game. And if I do this knowingly, then by all means that qualifies as disingenuous. But I haven't done any such thing.

You have a responsibility to those you must provide for.

Of course I do. But I also have a responsibility to the society I live in. And as my means grow to exceed what I require to provide for those for whom I must provide, so grows my responsibility to the society at large. And, oddly enough, that's exactly what progressive taxation attempts to replicate.

Of course I don't suggest that people should literally sell all they own and give the money to the poor. Jesus was setting that up as the ideal, not the norm. But at the same time, when I hear Christians cry "socialism" and "communism" at the suggestion that we should tax multimillionaires at an effective rate of 28% instead of at an effective rate of 24%, that passage does seem to put those objections into perspective, at least for me.

Abortion is a human rights issue, for those of us who care about it.

I'd argue that this is at least as true for the pro-choice camp as it is for the pro-life camp. It's just that we have vastly different notions of what it means to be a "human" deserving of "human rights," and what those rights ought to be.

Perhaps, but primarily it warns against *worry.* Those who wring their hands over "what-ifs" would do well to have "ears to hear."

Err, okay, now how about you apply that thinking to your above pants-wetting on Islamic terrorism? Why worry about it? God will take care of everything, right? ;)

I do at least have a basis for believing materialism is basically greed or distrust, thus sinful. On what basis can you say so?

Being an atheist, the concept of "sin" is nonsensical to me. As for whether materialism is good or bad, the answer on that is "it depends." In moderation, there's nothing at all wrong with it, and I'd even argue that it could be a net positive. In excess, the balance shifts rapidly to "bad." And I say that on the basis of how many people it helps versus how many people it harms. I am, at heart, a consequentialist. :)

It helps to remember that Jesus was speaking to people who had far less than we do, materially speaking.

I've struggled to think about how this helps your point rather than mine, and I give up. :)

[Paul]

I was interested in the comment that capitalism <> materialism <> greed. I agree that in principle that's true, but the US has reached a point where it's at least half way through materialism, if not bordering on greed. Virtually everyone has the basics (food, warmth, shelter) covered, and most have more than could be assigned to even pretty generous 'wants' instead of 'needs'.

What that means, I think, is that if the country wanted to deal in capitalism a Susannah describes it, the economy would have to shrink dramatically. Like it or not, right now general prosperity depends on the greed of the many (an attribute I loved when I lived there - I wasn't generally greedy, so living the relatively simple life I wanted was very affordable!). Furthermore, the capitalist solution to helping those who still don't have what they need depends on a rising tide of greed lifting all economic boats, until even the poorest are floating.

Wow, I sound like a Marxist :) Let me be clear that I don't favor the alternative (I think communism is just as hopeless an idea as 'pure' libertarianism). But I also wouldn't claim that capitalism is functionally distinct from materialism.

[Vinny]

The attackers (obviously) were motivated by an extreme form of Islam that would have us all under Islamic law. I don't think we can capitulate to that just to appease them. Do you?

I can’t imagine why you would even raise capitulation and appeasement as a possibility. Shouldn't we limit our discussion to rational choices?

[Nick]

Susannah:
This purported “recruiting bonanza” seems to have worked in our favor, since our soldiers have killed and captured a great many of them on *that* soil before they could organize to attack ours again.

This was a minor point in your post, but it bugs me whenever I hear it. I'm not picking on you alone, because I have heard it elsewhere. A lot of conservatives actually seem pleased that we attracted jihadists to Iraq where we are able to wipe them out with minimal danger to ourselves. The Iraqi people suffered for decades under a brutal dictator. Now, they have suffered unimaginable horrors at the hands of Al Qaeda and other jihadists who were attracted to Iraq by the US presence, as well as being killed in the crossfire when the U.S. engages those terrorists. That strikes me as something to mourn. Instead, people seem to see it as something to crow about. To celebrate that the terrorists have been attracted to someone else's soil, where someone else can suffer the brunt of their attacks, seems to me both craven and evil.

Given that we’ve been attack-free for seven years, wouldn't that indicate we're focusing on the right areas?

What was the average frequency of attacks on US soil prior to 9/11? There was the WTC bombing in 1993. Any others? How do you determine whether the war in Iraq has had any effect whatsoever on the frequency of attacks?

I'm inclined to think that locking cockpit doors has had a greater effect.

[tgirsch]

I'm inclined to think that locking cockpit doors has had a greater effect.

Not so much even that. 9/11 was, in a very real sense, a "once in a lifetime" chance for terrorists. Prior to 9/11, the conventional wisdom was to lay low and do whatever the hijackers ask you to do, because if you do, most of you get out alive. The 9/11 attacks changed that conventional wisdom. There's no incentive to sit quietly and let the hijackers take the plane. Now, the thinking is that if you give them what they want, you all die, so cooperation is now counterproductive.

Heck, that mentality changed that day, on United 93, once the passengers realized what was happening. So the 9/11 attacks created a paradigm shift over plane hijackings and how to handle them, that essentially make hijacking a plane even more difficult than before.

[Susannah]

“There was no significant al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our invasion, and indeed, Saddam viewed al Qaeda as a threat.”

I do know what I’m talking about. I read about this extensively at the time, although I can’t call the docs to hand at short notice—it’s been years. Al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi intelligence. Al Qaeda was indeed present in northern Iraq, and at least one terrorist training area (complete with airplane cockpit) was found in Iraq. Which is not to say that Saddam was personally behind the 9/11 attacks, but yes, Al Qaeda was *certainly* present there, and contacts happened between them and the government both in Baghdad and outside the country. That doesn’t indicate an aversion to AQ. I personally find even *one* training area “significant.” The CIA has backtracked on the significance of its own intelligence in recent years, but there seem to be political motivations for that. (I.e., the switcheroo wasn’t in the intelligence itself, or brought about by new intelligence.)

“Something to mourn…” Michael Yon has done a good deal of reporting on the oppression terrorists wrought on the inhabitants of trouble areas in Iraq. Having kept up with that, I do indeed know exactly how horrible they were in some horrific detail. Not only doing away with Saddam, but defeating AQ in Iraq was in *everyone’s* interest. Why you can’t rejoice for Iraqis’ sake at the downfall of some very bad guys is the real mystery. Would you wish Saddam back on the Iraqis again? Very compassionate.

“I doubt any good Christian could, in good conscience, advocate for "wait till it hurts, then go to the emergency room,…"

No, a Christian would step in and help personally. That’s what we do, because we consider ourselves the body of Christ in the world.

What you are advocating is a collectivistic approach to health care, which is a horrible, freedom-killing idea. In the current climate of “turn off the life support now to save expenses” WHAT exactly do you think will happen to the defenseless elderly who have no advocate under such a system--for just one fer-instance? Nursing homes already “off” the elderly now when they think nobody is looking! Do you think a government that is bearing the expense of social security and all other forms of welfare should be entrusted with our health care decisions? Bad, bad, bad idea. Do you realize that, actuarially speaking, the government *counts* on a certain percentage of us to die before collecting SS? I call that a serious conflict of interest.

The system certainly isn’t perfect (thanks in good part to gov’t fingers already in it), but government control is about the worst answer for it possible.

“If everybody chips in for something that everybody needs, that's not what I'd call a "hand-out" (nor "free"). And that's what we're talking about here.”

Everybody does not chip in, but you are correct, it’s not free for those who are paying. At any rate, that’s not your money to seize. It’s somebody else’s property. That’s wrong at base—it’s theft--and it just gets more wrong as you go making decisions *for* people rather than allowing them to make their own. You may think it benevolent, but the person who never asked for nor wanted the invasion of universal health care into his or her personal life will not thank you for it.

As a lifelong conservative, I have never personally had wealth to “protect,” nor have my parents, yet I appreciate being able to keep more of my husband’s hard-earned money to support my own children and give to my own community. There are millions of families just like mine who have been helped tremendously by Bush’s tax cuts. And I don’t have to steal it from another man’s pocket for my children and neighbors to benefit from it, either.

“By your definition, public education is a hand-out, as are public roads and other infrastructure.”

Public education is a handout. Public roads—part of gov’t’s original mandate.

“But what happens when the system inevitably devolves into oligarchy?”

What oligarchy? Seriously, do we live in the same country? Are you saying this country is ruled by corporations? Rich fat cat lawyers in Congress, maybe. ;)

“When a large portion of the population doesn't really enjoy economic freedom,”

Everyone has equal opportunity under the law. That doesn’t guarantee equal income.

“So what do we do to fix that?”

Each of us work hard?

“To me, economic freedom doesn't just mean a theoretical ability to work hard and get ahead; it means a practical ability to do that.”

You cited public education. Available to everyone. Don’t even need a public education to be educated (take it from a homeschooler). Abe Lincoln did it. If you want something, you work for it. It’s that simple. I do understand what it’s like to be poor. I’ve *been* poor! There’s an emotional and cultural element to it, to be sure. It takes working past that emotion, past that cultural expectation, and succeeding in spite of it.

“Yet for some reason I've never been able to figure out, social conservatives tend to be vehemently opposed to doing anything to ensure that kind of social justice.”

Conservatives view “social justice” for what it is; a left-wing code phrase for victim-centered politics (i.e. Marxism-lite), remedied by...collectivism, of course.

Throwing the “justice” in is the easiest/quickest way to dupe concerned, well-meaning voters into handing more power over to the government.

“It's as if the ability to amass personal wealth is more important to them than social justice is.”

No, we believe in FREEDOM! In a free system, some will amass wealth. What has that to do with me and my theology-professor-led household? LOL! Government control over industry is the quick road to tyranny. History provides ample evidence for that.

“I just happen to agree that part of the price of becoming wealthy is that you bear a greater share of the responsibility towards ensuring social justice.”

Fancy it up; it still boils down to the gov’t dictating what to do my and my neighbor's property.

The most galling thing about it is: you give Congress more tax dollars from the pockets of hard-working Americans, and what’ll they do with it? Spend that extra dollar where it is intended to go? Nope. Waste it. In large amounts. Really ticks me off.

“If we doubled Bill Gates' taxes tomorrow, trust me, he'd still be plenty wealthy, and would continue to have more money than you and I could ever dream of.”

But it’s still *his money.* He may be rich enough to throw it down the gaping maw without a care in the world, but it isn’t yours, mine, or Congress’s to spend. It’s his. He earned it. He took the risks. He gets the reward.

“I can assure you that the policies I advocate mean higher taxes for me personally.“

You, and a whole lot of other people who fundamentally don’t agree with you.

“And as for the "least of all," I'm in favor of health care for everyone, including pregnant women and newborns (rather than just the wealthy ones).”

Don’t we already have Medicaid? WIC? Etc. etc. etc.? Exactly what level of minimum wage is compassionate? $7.25? $8.50? Why not $20.00 an hour? If 28% is "just" then why is 26% unjust? At what level of taxation will our society become "just" enough?

“If I cite Jesus' teachings wrongly, and present a teaching as meaning something other than what it actually means, then that's certainly fair game.”

Yep.

“But I also have a responsibility to the society I live in.”

I’m honestly curious: on what basis? I know whence my responsibility arises, but it’s certainly not the same for you. I’m just wondering what the moral basis is for you.

But back to the discussion—why must that responsibility automatically be routed through government? Can’t you care for your neighbor without its help? Wouldn't that be more efficient than routing money through Congress?

“Of course I don't suggest that people should literally sell all they own and give the money to the poor. Jesus was setting that up as the ideal, not the norm. “

No, he was prescribing what the rich young ruler, who kept the law outwardly in all points, needed most. There is no Christian “ideal” regarding wealth or poverty. It’s a matter of the heart, as stated before. “Mammon,”--yes, not good. But only God can see in which heart wealth is transformed into mammon. Who are you to judge your neighbor’s heart? Get the log out of your own eye first. (Jesus, again.)

“But at the same time, when I hear Christians cry "socialism" and "communism" at the suggestion that we should tax multimillionaires at an effective rate of 28% instead of at an effective rate of 24%, that passage does seem to put those objections into perspective, at least for me.”

Obama is proposing taxing people well below “multimillionaire” level who’ve successfully built their own businesses through honest hard work. And again, why isn't 24% just enough?

“I'd argue that this is at least as true for the pro-choice camp as it is for the pro-life camp.”

Explicit right to life trumps “penundra”-derived right to privacy. Many agree Roe = bad legal reasoning.

“pants-wetting” Cute. ;) Yes, God does indeed take care of us, terrorists, economy troubles, or whatever. I don’t wring my hands over it at all, but I do rightly expect that the government should carry out a duty *basic* to its original mandate: national security.

“In excess, the balance shifts rapidly to ‘bad.’"

“Bad” on what basis? Because you don’t like it? *I* know why greed and covetousness are bad, and how they run afoul of God’s goodness. I’m struggling to think of it the way you would, without a moral basis.

“I've struggled to think about how this helps your point rather than mine, and I give up.”

My point in citing the passage was that Jesus wasn’t about the government’s business. He was about His Father’s business. Totally different agenda, there, and one of which you would most assuredly not approve. That’s precisely *why* Jesus said, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Aside: Thus, no matter how unjust the taxes, a Christian is *never* to cheat on them. :) )

Jesus wasn’t talking about government to these people at all, so it’s irrelevant to your point, which is why you shouldn’t have cited him in the first place.

He said not to worry. The message is quite a personal one for me. Unemployment? Don’t worry. House payments behind? Your heavenly Father knows what you need. And so on and so forth. Believe me, I *memorized* this passage not too many years ago. And guess what? It’s all true. :) My heavenly Father does know what I need, and He has met the need every. single. time.

“I can’t imagine why you would even raise capitulation and appeasement as a possibility. Shouldn't we limit our discussion to rational choices?”

I mean terrorists are not motivated by the things you claim they are. They have a religious motivation. That’s precisely what they want from us. We can’t give them what they want.

“I'm inclined to think that locking cockpit doors has had a greater effect.”

Give the good guys some credit. How many *plots* have been foiled since then?

[Susannah]

We should consider ourselves forewarned:

The "worthless" should be put down to save expense under national health care, says British "ethicist."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008

[tgirsch]

Susannah:
Al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi intelligence.

I've never heard of any such thing. I hope you can provide a cite for that. I know al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, but he didn't pledge his allegiance to al Qaeda until after we invaded there. In any case, your history seems to be a collection of discredited talking points. Prior to our invasion, al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq. Even the Bush Administration acknowledges this.

Would you wish Saddam back on the Iraqis again?

No, but a surprising number of them would. (Of course, we're the ones who helped install Hussein in the first place, and we're also responsible for the chaos that ensued owing to our failure to plan for the aftermath of his removal, so either way, the Iraqi blood is on our hands.)

No, a Christian would step in and help personally.

And when that isn't enough?

What you are advocating is a collectivistic approach to health care, which is a horrible, freedom-killing idea.

Yes, because everyone knows that Europeans and Canadians have no personal freedom of any kind...

In the current climate of “turn off the life support now to save expenses” WHAT exactly do you think will happen to the defenseless elderly who have no advocate under such a system

What prevents the private sector from doing the same thing right now? Why are you so convinced that similar protections couldn't exist in a public system? If anything, the private sector, left to its own devices, is far more likely to undertake such cost-cutting measures. (Just as public schools are far less likely to boot out underperforming kids.)

Everybody does not chip in

That depends upon the tax model used to finance it; those details have not yet been worked out. If done correctly, everyone who earns and spends money pays for part of it, directly or indirectly.

but you are correct, it’s not free for those who are paying. At any rate, that’s not your money to seize. It’s somebody else’s property. That’s wrong at base—it’s theft--and it just gets more wrong as you go making decisions *for* people rather than allowing them to make their own.

Matt 22:15-22 (I noticed you cited that below, when it was convenient to your point...)

But I'm glad you understand that you're "robbing" me to pay for a war I don't support. (Seriously, the whole taxation-is-theft thing is tired, tired, tired. If a tax is approved by a legitimate democratically-enacted legislature and signed into law by a legitimate, democratically-elected president, it can hardly be construed as "theft," unless you dilute the meaning of the word "theft" beyond all recognition.

There are millions of families just like mine who have been helped tremendously by Bush’s tax cuts. And I don’t have to steal it from another man’s pocket for my children and neighbors to benefit from it, either.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're stealing it from your children. We all are. A dollar spent is a dollar taxed sooner or later, so the more we spend now without the taxes to pay for it, the more we're just saddling our children with debt.

But if lower taxes are what you really care about, then you should vote for Obama -- if you're not wealthy, you'll pay substantially less in taxes under his plan than you would under McCain's.

Public education is a handout. Public roads—part of gov’t’s original mandate.

So whether or not something is a "handout" depends on whether or not it's part of the government's "orginal mandate?" That seems like an arbitrary definition of "handout" to me. I guess a standing army is a handout, too...

What oligarchy?

Two points here. First, you should look up oligarchy -- it has nothing to do with corporations. Second, I should have looked up oligarchy, too, because what I really meant was a plutocracy. :)

Each of us work hard?

If that were sufficient, I'd be right there with you. But I'm afraid that hard work, in and of itself, doesn't even come close to giving someone a fighting chance at success. A poor single mother can work her butt off, and her child gets a serious illness, and it wipes out everything she's done, through no fault of her own. She can't even pay her medical bills, much less try to get ahead. But maybe, if she's lucky, some benevolent Christian will come along and voluntarily help her out.

Conservatives view “social justice” for what it is; a left-wing code phrase for victim-centered politics

And you chide us for lack of compassion? Sheesh! But hey, if that's how you have to defend your odd view that justice ought to be voluntary, go right ahead...

No, we believe in FREEDOM!

You just seem to have a different definition of freedom than I do. The fact that I have to pay taxes doesn't mean I'm not "free." In fact, if I don't like paying taxes, I'm free to leave, and I'm free to lobby to change the tax structure.

Government control over industry is the quick road to tyranny. History provides ample evidence for that.

There's an important difference between government regulation and government control. For those with short memories of history, before we had much government regulation, we had these things called "robber barons," and they were almost universally acknowledged as being bad. Also, one need look no further than the current state of disarray in the financial markets to see what a lack of proper regulation gets you -- and both Democrats and Republicans bear plenty of guilt in the rush to deregulate, so don't think for a moment that this is a partisan criticism.

Fancy it up; it still boils down to the gov’t dictating what to do my and my neighbor's property.

Allow me to reiterate: we are the government. It's not them, it's us, collectively, like it or not.

The most galling thing about it is: you give Congress more tax dollars from the pockets of hard-working Americans, and what’ll they do with it? Spend that extra dollar where it is intended to go? Nope. Waste it. In large amounts. Really ticks me off.

In case you haven't noticed, they've been wasting it anyway. But instead of spending our money to do it, they've been spending your children's money. But hey, as long as YOUR taxes are lower, what do you care? Let your kids clean up your mess.

Look, I'm all for increased accountability in government, including all sorts of controls on spending. That doesn't mean I oppose all spending, however, nor does it mean that I think we should cut taxes whether or not we afford to do so, as Republicans seem to think.

Strip the corporate protectionism out of Medicare and you save a big chunk of waste right there. Fix the corruption in the military-industrial complex, and there's another big chunk. I'm all for that. But I just don't buy the argument that because corruption winds up playing a role in what government does, we should just have the government stop doing anything. There's a middle ground to be had, and it involves oversight and accountability.

But it’s still *his money.*

An argument I'd be a lot more sympathetic to if he didn't make his money with a whole lot of help from the government. But in truth, the government played a huge role. From paying to educate the majority of his workforce, to ensuring (relatively) stable markets in which to invest, to providing an infrastructure to deliver his software, to even providing the very infrastructure on which his software depends (the internet would not exist in its current form without massive government investment), to buying millions upon millions of dollars worth of his software, Gates owes a lot more of his fortune to things the government made possible than you might think.

You, and a whole lot of other people who fundamentally don’t agree with you.

And those people who disagree with me are more than capable of arguing for something else, and of leaving for greener pastures if they lose that battle.

Don’t we already have Medicaid? WIC? Etc. etc. etc.?

Programs which you would eliminate, and have derided as "handouts." I say they don't go far enough. You say they go too far. Ask yourself honestly: do you think America's children would, on the whole, be better off or worse off if not for such programs? At some point, we have to take responsibility for the results (or likely results) of the things we support or oppose.

Exactly what level of minimum wage is compassionate?

As I've said before, I favor a living wage -- a wage that makes your idea that "if you work hard, you do okay" a reality. That means that if you work a full-time job, you're guaranteed a wage that allows you to put food in your mouth, clothes on your back, a roof over your head, and at least some basic level of health care. I don't know what that number would be, specifically, but it wouldn't be that difficult to calculate. Use 110% of the poverty level as a starting point.

I’m honestly curious: on what basis?

Personal responsibility. If I want a stable, peaceful, sustainable society, I have to take some degree of responsibility for ensuring that. And that goes well beyond just looking out for #1.

But back to the discussion—why must that responsibility automatically be routed through government?

Not all of it must be, but it makes sense for some of it to be. And they certainly needn't be mutually exclusive, as you seem to suggest.

But there's another, deeper factor at play here. Libertarian-style conservatives ("lib-cons"), as you seem to be (at least economically) always seem to want to ignore this, but it's crucially important: we generally can know what people will do in the aggregate, and it's logical and reasonable to act on that knowledge. So what happens if we know that voluntary altruism isn't going to be enough? Lib-cons basically shrug and say "oh, well, that's the price of 'freedom.'" Liberals like me take a deeper look, and try to figure out what we can do (yes, collectively) to actually address the problem, rather than just hope (and, presumably, pray) that it goes away by itself.

I know collective action is horrifying to you, but humans are societal creatures, and some degree of collectivism is natural, and not inherently bad. There's nothing wrong with balancing collective responsibility with individual freedom, rather than trying to go all one way or all the other way.

No, he was prescribing what the rich young ruler, who kept the law outwardly in all points, needed most.

I hear similar arguments about the admonition against capital punishment in John 8, that somehow Jesus was speaking very narrowly, and that there's no broader lesson to be learned outside of that isolated incident. This position has never made sense to me. Jesus taught in parables, and if you're only paying attention to his literal meanings and to the specific circumstances of each lesson, you're missing the broader point. (At least, that's what my Catholic upbringing and Presbyterian theology education both held.)

Obama is proposing taxing people well below “multimillionaire” level who’ve successfully built their own businesses through honest hard work.

Both McCain and Obama propose taxing everyone above a certain level. How much different people are taxed is the only thing that differs under the two plans. Under the Obama plan, $250,000 is the cutoff -- if your AGI is higher than that, you'll pay more in taxes than you do today (and more than you would under McCain's plan). If your AGI is less than that, you'll pay less under Obama than you do today (and than you would under McCain). What I don't understand is why higher taxes for the rich are supposed to be bad, but higher taxes for the poor are supposed to be okay.

And again, why isn't 24% just enough?

Because it's not enough to pay for what we've been spending. Now, you're likely to say that we spend too much, and I'm inclined to agree (it's a separate debate, but I think we could support all of the programs I want for less than we currently spend). But as I keep repeating, a dollar spent is a dollar taxed, so you can't put the tax cut cart before the spending horse.

“Bad” on what basis? Because you don’t like it?

"Bad" because it harms far more people than it helps. I would expect a Christian to understand that. The results are what matter to a consequentialist like me, and if it harms lots of people, it's probably bad.

My point in citing the passage was that Jesus wasn’t about the government’s business. He was about His Father’s business.

Funny how even he was more willing to recognize a strict separation between the two than you are. :)

I mean terrorists are not motivated by the things you claim they are. They have a religious motivation.

That's the easy-to-swallow bogeyman version, but in the real world, it's a lot more complicated than that.