Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago?
It’s increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the last realignment in American politics. With a good-natured, civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their own party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his own party.
He didn’t aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he try for a polarising 51% strategy, as George W Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate, in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their own government. Reagan shocked America’s elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
My 83 year old proud-to-have-never-voted-for-a-Democrat-in-her-life mother likes him.
Sullivan is increasingly infatuated with his own templates and models. Let’s set aside, for the moment, the MSM’s flatter-focus coverage. What, exactly, does Obama offer disaffected Republicans?
I like Obama. I won’t vote for him due to policy positions, but I think he’s a good man, maybe in need of 8 more years of experience, preferably as a governor. We don’t really elect senators to the presidency that much in this country.
The question is whether the Democrats are in the same place as the Republicans were in 1980, and moreover, whether the country is in the same place as it was in 1968. In my opinion, 2008 isn’t like either of those times. Iraq isn’t Vietnam and Bush isn’t Carter.
Well…he seems like a nice young man…but IMHO he needs more than a one-page resume to take the helm of the ship of state…
As usual, Sully’s deluding himself. I guess Andy will support just about anyone who’s okay with what that alleged “conservative” enjoys in his off-hours.
[blockquote] He [Reagan] didn’t aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he try for a polarising 51% strategy, as George W Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate, in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their own government. Reagan shocked America’s elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives.[/blockquote]
1 – Trust me, Reagan alienated plenty of liberals.
2- Reagan may have won 49 states, but he did not create a Republican majority. It took Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton’s original health care plan, and Monica Lewinsky to do that.
3 – Trust me, by the time this is over, Obama will have plenty of conservative enemies.
Anybody who thinks Reagan didn’t alienate liberals wasn’t voting in those elections. Sullivan is making no more sense than if he were claiming that Henry Wallace and George Wallace shared more than a last name.
Agreeing with Sullivan never makes me comfortable, but you can count me with Susan’s mom — Obama will be the first non-Republican presidential candidate I will ever have voted for, for it looks increasingly likely that he will get my vote. Certainly none of the Republican candidates will except [i]possibly[/i] McCain.
I’m afraid if I keep posting my political opinions on this blog someone is going to come and take away my “reasserter” badge and cut off my IRC money.
The great advantage in American democracy is that someone must win.
I will not vote for Obama as he is too liberal and Clinton is to the left of him and, like her husband, lies. Guliani is too much of a hypocrite. And I may not vote for any of the other Rebublicans either. We shall see.
Andrew Sullivan is as conservative as the Vicar of Bray. He tries to find what he hopes will be the up and coming political bandwagon/gravy train and tries to get out front.
Obama’s theology and politics are forged in the furnace of the wacko looney tunes UCC…’nough said…pro-gay agenda, pro-culture of death, universal federal health care, re-packaged 60’s nonsense…even as we agitate for change, how could any thinking person vote for this man?
Andy’s in loooove – again.
Does Sullivan think Bill Clinton actually aimed for a plurality, and Bush for only a 51% majority? Both would have been happy to do better.
Obama is attractive and articulate and will do well in the TV age. I give him credit for not running on identity politics. His policies, when he discusses them, are strongly left-wing. If Republicans nominate somebody with a conservative message, we could actually have an election about ideas and the direction of the country. While I’m afraid Obama might win because of some people voting with their emotions instead of their minds, I welcome the end of the Clinton stranglehold on one of our major parties.
wamark: Obama has said he’s against gay marriage (although is in favor of states allowing for civil unions), he’s anti-death penalty (rejecting part of the ‘culture of death’, although he remains pro-choice), and there are more than a few reasons for Christians to support universal health care in one form or another. In fact I can think of very few Christian reasons to oppose it.
As far as his ideals being forged in the UCC — well, if you agree with him, who cares where he got them? That’s a irrelevent and irrational criticism. Romney’s ideals were formed in LDS, which is no better.
Obama’s support of abortion rights bothers me, but his position on so many other issues outweighs this one shortcoming. Besides, the president has very little influence over abortion law except for Supreme Court nominations.
[blockquote]pro-gay agenda, pro-culture of death, universal federal health care, re-packaged 60’s nonsense…even as we agitate for change, how could any thinking person vote for this man?[/blockquote]
I’m asking myself the same question. What has Obama done, what policy position does he hold, that distinguishes him from every other social democrat running for president this year? I mean, I know he’s attractive, articulate and bi-racial, but so is Halle Berry.
Halle 2008. For Change.
The trouble with elections is that no matter whom you vote for, the Government always gets in.
And #11, Sullivan was GWB’s biggest non-traditional booster until it became clear that he was really on the other side of the gay marriage issue. At that point he cut him loose.
[blockquote]and there are more than a few reasons for Christians to support universal health care in one form or another. In fact I can think of very few Christian reasons to oppose it.[/blockquote]
I can think of two very big ones:
1. It’s a form of theft.
2. It encourages pathological behavior.
Lord save us from all attempts to immanentize the eschaton.
Theft? Wow… I’m trying to compose a reply but I don’t even know where to start.
First, I guess, your wealth does not belong to you — it belongs to God. Throughout the Bible, God shows that the poor and helpless are a priority. If the government is going to collect taxes, health care for those who can’t afford it is one of the absolute best things it can spend it on — moreso than new fighter jets or a border fence.
Second — what do you mean by rewarding pathological behavior? My 40-year-old sister in law is on government support because she has been crippled with MS; what pathological behavior would you attribute this to?
#12 Waymark – do you know anything about Chicago or Chicago politics or churches? What makes you think Obama doesn’t think independently of his pastor, anyway. It’s like assuming George Bush believes everything Luis Leon says.
Obama is more influenced by Harold Washington than Jeremiah Wright. As far as religion goes: if you are an educated, professional black on the South Side of Chicago, there is a good chance you’re going to Jeremiah Wright’s church. What makes you think people go there just for theology? Besides, he is a good preacher, and far more biblically centered than some evangelicals. I knew several people who attended his church and was impressed by their spirituality, magnanimity, and trust in God. Granted – big media is going to have a field day exploiting Jeremiah Wright’s background.
#18 Reactionary –
1) Universal health care is a form of caring for our fellow citizens. It would be a disincentive upon greed and selfishness.
2) paradoxially, it is a form of economic rationality because until we start killing the sick, investing public health care is a lot cheaper (compare the administrative health costs of Medicare and your average insurance company
3) if I did invest in insurance companies, I’d want them to screw the sick for my own personal profit. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be doing their job of making money.
Scott K,
If my wealth belongs to God, then a fortiori it does not belong to the government, much less a militantly secular one.
Socialized medicine means people can engage in errant behaviors like smoking, gangsterism, drug use, unwed pregnancy, etc., and dump the costs on the taxpayers.
Re: your 40-year old sister in law, I have my own problems. Why do I need to underwrite yours as well? Have you ever heard the term rent-seeking?
John W.,
Charity that relies on government force is not charity, it is simply A deciding how to spend B’s money on C. This gives rise to all sorts of awful externalities.
And here is the problem with medical insurance: it is an attempt to insure an inherently uninsurable casualty. But you seem to be ignorant of general business principles, much less the fundamentals of risk management so I’m probably wasting my time.
But back on topic, can anyone tell me how Obama is different from every other social democrat since Wilson who promises government benefits to be paid for by somebody else? Can anyone tell me how he can make work what hasn’t ever worked?
Universal health care and universal health insurance are not the same thing. We are, arguably close to the first, though not through the [i]means[/i] of insurance.
Here’s the principle: in a decent community, people can get health care. We can discuss the various means that might happen, but if we don’t agree on that principle, there’s no point in a discussion.
Reactionary, one thing is clear: you are as much a “reappraiser” as Susan Russell or John Wilkins, though you deny the scriptures in a different area.
[i]Re: your 40-year old sister in law, I have my own problems. Why do I need to underwrite yours as well? Have you ever heard the term rent-seeking?[/i]
This is the most evil thing I have heard come out of self-described “Christian” in a long time. Consider your soul!
Words Matter,
Where did I say I was against people getting decent health care? And it sounds like you are unaware of why health and medical care are inherently uninsurable casualties as well.
And how is it Christian to support tax dollars taken from force by one family to give to another family? I’ve got my own tragedies but it still wouldn’t justify rent-seeking for my familial obligations.
You are, in all candor, clueless. Don’t immanentize the eschaton.
#15 Scott…That his UCC affiliation is unimportant is, for me, non-sense…culture (even a religious culture) forms and conditions patterns of behavior, most every study tells us this. Ordinarily I am not bothered by religious affiliation but having worked ecumenically with the UCC for years I have absolutely no respect for them. Its a personal thing. As to having no power with regard to abortion other than “Supreme Court nominations”…bingo! That is precisely why I voted for GW twice because he had the authority to appoint supreme court justices and he gave two very fine justices in Roberts and Alito. Obama will give us liberal hacks who will push their “revisionist” view of the constitution upon an unsuspecting country further unraveling our social fabric.
#20 John…Do I know Chicago, its politics and churches? You bet I do! I may live and work in Seattle now but I have family in Chicago and grew up in its shadow in Madison, Wi. I was in Chicago twice this fall on church related matters and visit Chicago often. I know that Chicago is run by the
Democratic machine and is corrupt to the core. It’s church life, if my own ELCA and the TEC are examples, is solidly revisionist and liberal , liberal, liberal. Thank God that Chicago is also a major see in the Catholic Church so that there can at least be some witness to the historic faith.
Andrew Sullivan’s contention that Obama is “a liberal Reagan” is a bad comparison. Reagan talked and wrote extensively about conservative ideas before running for President. He was about ideas. Obama’s run is short on ideas and long on personality and charisma. The policies which he is known to espouse are left-wing, but he is far from the liberal counterpart to the Great Communicator.
I have not read all of the comments above, but Obama is nothing like Reagan; a very, very bad comparison.
If you want to read some of the “stuff” we haven’t been privy to from MSM, try here:
http://musicalinfidels.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-in-kenya-dr-jack-wheeler-rational.html
Granted it is dated, but trust him? No way, not on your life.
The notion that past Presidents “unified” the country is looking back through rosy glasses. I remember many Democrats’ bitter opposition to–and even hatred of–Reagan. Despite Reagan’s personal electoral successes, the GOP never won enough votes to control the House, and held the Senate only narrowly for 6 years before losing it to the Dems in the 1986 midterm blowout. Reagan succeeded desite these divisions, and his presidency, now a quarter-century in the past, is viewed by most as a success. In contrast LBJ had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate and was elected in 1964 by a popular vote margin that exceeded even that of Reagan’s reelection in 1984. Despite these successes, his presidency is viewed by many as a failure due to Vietnam and the massive expansion of the welfare state (people tend to overlook his orchastration of the civil rights legislation).
#23, since when has rationality had anything whatsoever to do with electing a Social Democrat? It’s hope and moonbeams devoid at reality at the best of times.
Reactionary is exactly right here and those thumping the tub for expanding state power are in deep error. Christ has commanded us to help the unfortunate amongst us…he surely has not commanded us to point a gun at others to compel them to do so.
[i]Christ has commanded us to help the unfortunate amongst us.[/i]
Compare Christ’s command with Reactionaries statement:
[/i]Re: your 40-year old sister in law, I have my own problems. Why do I need to underwrite yours as well? Have you ever heard the term rent-seeking.[/i]
This is pure evil. I could, if I thought it would matter, cite scripture after scripture on the responsibility we have for one another. But I doubt it would do any good. Revisionists, of all sorts, will dismiss those scriptures that disagree with them. Again, we can argue about means, but since we disagree with the fundamentals, there’s no point in discussing means.
For the record, I think medical savings accounts are the way to go for routine health care, with insurance returning to its previous place of funding catastrophic event. Those not participating in that basic system might have access to public health care, such as we currently have, or some sort of single-payer insurance scheme, whichever is more efficient. Yeah, I’m a real “liberal”, aren’t I!
WM,
I have several ailing family members. Since the Bible instructs us to give alms, I am sure you won’t mind if I send my armed gang over to collect money to help defray our expenses.
Can you cite me the Biblical proposition that supports rent-seeking from government?
My wife’s copayments are nearly the size of my brother’s mortgage. I’d like some of your money too, WM.
A lot of people need to get over the notion that the only action that counts is State action. My Romie-Homies are especially prone to this.
[blockquote]This is pure evil. I could, if I thought it would matter, cite scripture after scripture on the responsibility we have for one another. [/blockquote]
I’m certain you could, but Reactionary’s assertion wasn’t given within the context of a discussion about whether to voluntarily give alms to the poor or ill so they may live. It was within the context of whether or not to erect a coercive regime whereby those who choose not to participate in a health insurance system, or who choose to participate at a diminished level, are compelled by threat of violence to do so.
And I can virtually guarantee that Christ didn’t command us to mug our neighbors as ourselves.
If you love FEMA, the immigration mess,and the tax code you well LOVE a federal health care system! What in the constitution allows the federal government to create a health care sytem ?
I didn’t say the [i]only[/i] action that matters is the state’s action. There is a fundamental dishonesty at work here. Smart-aleck responses are precisely the sort of thing one gets from revisionists, be they Susan Russell or Reactionary. Or Rush Limbaugh.
The issue is faith vs. avarice. When you trust God, He takes care of us. The more you trust him, and act as his hands in this world, the more He cares for our needs. When you take the attitude that “I got mine, take care of yourself”, you have put yourself in Satan’s court. Again, we can talk about different means, but I rather feel that we don’t agree about the ends, which makes discussion pointless. Just remember that avarice will send you to hell as fast as lust will.
As a Roman, Ed, you particularly should read the encyclicals and study the economic and social doctrines of our Church. Cheap cliches instead of sound Catholic doctrine: shame on you!
But who would ever trust the Federal Government to run anything…(except the loon left) look at their dismal record…the Post Office, Amtrak, the Iraq War (Haliburton), Medicaid /Medicare now (now there’s a monument to greed and corruption), Social Security…an impending disaster, The Department of Education has terminally screwed up public education. It seems the Federal Government hasn’t met any privately run program it couldn’t totally corrupt and ruin. Amtrak style health care, now there is a dream come true…NOT!
I would notice that it’s not while “government” in general is the villain, the complaints are about specific programs and services. Taxes are bad, but you still drive on tax-built streets and walk on tax-built sidewalks.
At this moment, I am watching a news segment on Parkland Hospital in Dallas. They have an emergency case come in every 9 minutes, on average. But saving these lives is stealing from Reactionary, and mugging Jeffersonian; God help us, Ed, but for those people, the states action is the one that counts. Actually, the county, the state, the feds, and private insurance all kick in. But hey, why consider complexities.
wamark, I’d rather have a poorly run Amtrak than none at all (Go, passenger rail service!). I’d rather have an inept FEMA than let people drown. And I’m coming to think I might like a state sponsored health system more than what we have now, which is leaving lots of people to rot.
Reactionary, read more NT Wright. He makes excellent points, throughout his works, not about “immanentizing the eschaton” but about being partners is Christ’s project of new creaton. And he’s about as orthodox as they come.
Scott K, I don’t want to be kicked out of the reasserter club either, which is why I usually shut up about politics. When asked about my political persuasion, I say “catholic” (an answer I got from a priest friend of mine during the 2004 election).
[blockquote]At this moment, I am watching a news segment on Parkland Hospital in Dallas. They have an emergency case come in every 9 minutes, on average. But saving these lives is stealing from Reactionary, and mugging Jeffersonian; God help us, Ed, but for those people, the states action is the one that counts. Actually, the county, the state, the feds, and private insurance all kick in. But hey, why consider complexities. [/blockquote]
I’ll thank you to not misrepresent my views. If private health insurance companies want to contribute, I’m fine with that. Same with hospitals, nurses, orderlies, philanthropists, etc. We can associate or not associate with these entities as we see fit.
But you cannot deny that, at the core, government action is coercive action is violent action. And that is no way to run a society, Christian or otherwise.
#40 I am a member of the National Railroad Passenger Association and believe we need good rail service. We once had good rail service. But government policy and government mismanagement has ruined it. it is interesting to note, however, that the Federal Government is about to allow private companies to begin rail service having recognized it own ineptitude.
With regard to parkland Hospital: public hospitals in America’s big cities are on the verge of bankruptcy due to their use and over use by illegals and people who cannot pay, usually drug addicted who make up the so called homeless population who are bankrupting Social Security with SSI. Of course, this is all a big game in America’s big cities like San Fran and Seattle that want these SSI dollars to fuel and enlarge government power and staffing. I know this first hand having worked in Social Services for San Fran for many years.
Moreover, I have read almost all of NT Wright’s works and heard him several times in person…good theology and good scholarship does not always make for good public policy. Rowan Williams comes to mind as a prime example of this. But Wright has certainly put the lie to those who like to misuse that passage from scripture about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned as justifying bleeding heart liberal policies. Try reading it and be enlightened by its real meaning.
[i]But you cannot deny that, at the core, government action is coercive action is violent action. [/i]
I can’t? Hide and watch. As has been said, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society”. I trust you’ll stay off the roads and sidewalks they robbed you to build. I trust you won’t be calling the police paid for by taxes they extorted from you. Arm yourself, protect yourself.
It is the fundamental dishonesty of a response like your that betrays the basically anti-Christian source of your philosophy. I listed several sources of income Parkland receives and you hone in on the one that you approve of, the smallest one, I would add, ignoring that thousands of lives are saved by the tax money ripped, violently, from your greedy, selfish, grasping hands. The love of money is the root of all evil, Jeffersonian.
Unless you are a rabid, consistent libertarian on the model of, oh, Robert Heinlein (see his classic The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), or perhaps Ron Paul, then most of us concede that there is an appropriate role for the state in supplying certain services.
The government, through its taxing power, is responsible for almost all the roads we drive on, and almost no one would argue for otherwise.
But the government does not give us cars to drive on them. That’s up to us, and the type of car we can have (and can afford) is also left largely to the market. Again, almost no one argues against this.
Then again, most education through high school is funded and run by the government, with significant exceptions. Go to college, though, and one finds a competitive situation between private and public.
Thus in health care: is it to be like the roads, a service offered to all regardless of income? Or is health a good like cars, where choices are largely made on the basis of markets? Or like education, where some basic, primary services are offered to all (with great variations in quality), but more advanced service requires more personal resources, not only if that service is supplied privately but even if through state funded institutions?
I vote for roads, so to speak. I do so not only because it is universal health care is a moral good, but also because it is a practical good as well. The present medical insurance system grew out of the price controls of WW II, and is responsible for many of the inequities in health care in American society. I fail to see how any conservative can defend a system created under such circumstances.
Getting back to the subject of the post, I truly think Obama is a likeable, sincere guy. There are many likeable sincere people that I get along with but completely disagree with.
Maybe I’m too much of an “issues voter” but I cannot vote for a candidate that’s pro-abortion.
Reactionary, as a citizen of the US, there are some things I pay dues for by being a citizen. I can move to Russia if I decide that I don’t want a government to protect me. I pay dues for the legal system that ensures that people follow the rules of the market, that upholds deeds and mortagages, allows for the industrious who follow the rules not to be overwhelmed bythe powerful who break the rules as they see fit. I pay for a bureaucracy that keeps the records that say I own the land I own and am married to someone. In your country, perhaps you’d prefer I just had a rifle. That’s a kind of violence that I’m glad most people have rejected. if you like that kind of country, good for you.
And there are some countries where it is only one’s physical power, one’s control of the army, one’s wealth, that gives people freedom. But there are some things worth paying dues for. Like democracy. Public roads, public hospitals, and public schools are better than the alternative, which would be chaos and robbery of a different sort. We’re fortunate, reactionary, that people “stole” money – as you would put it – for rural electrification, for the TVA, for State Universities, for the GI Bill. The externalities you mention are the fictions of the self righteous mind, horrified by people who are la little less than perfect. I wish we were a little less sinful, Reactionary. I doubt eliminating the government would change things. Augustine didn’t think so.
But I can understand why you hate taxes. After all, lots of our taxes isn’t going to anything that helps you personally. It’s going to blow up things in Iraq. Trillions of dollars of your children’s tax money. Blown up. Just like that. To make us safer. We hope.
Wamark – first of all – the post office is a private corporation, essentially. And it has a pretty good rate of getting things to the right places.
1) Amtrak. If a corporation had underfunded a project as much as Amtrack was underfunded, it would still go under. The state pays for the roads that allow our cars to run smoothly. We barely pay for the train tracks. Plainly – the government wants Amtrak to fail. That’s the Republican’s agenda. Why not look at a transportation system that works – like in Europe. They go on time, and people are happy.
2) you mention the Iraq war without noting that the reason we’re wasting all our money is that we’ve eliminated most of our internal auditors and turned everything over to private contractors who are… greedy political hacks. Why are we surprised? poeple are greedy.
the Iraq
3) you’ll have to provide evidence that Medicated and Medicare are corrupt, or any less efficient than corporate insurance. I can’t find any. Of course, here in NY, Spitzer saved 1 billion dollars recently by simply hiring auditors to stop fraud. Would republicans hire auditors? No.
The rest of your comment, Warnack… lacks evidence.
You know something: I had a child molester put in jail today. But I did it with tax money ripped from Jeffersonian’s pocket. I virtually mugged Ed to put this guy away and Reactionary will probably starve. To make it worse, this guy could end up back in prison (I hope so, but that’s not my call) and wamark will probably end up in the homeless shelter. So mea maxima culpa, guys. Just for you, I’m going in tomorrow and ask them to withdraw the warrant and let him back out. After all, it’s tax money to feed and house him and we can’t be robbing you guys on a daily basis that way.
Nice post, IRNS and thanks for the road thing. Arguably it was good roads and the air traffic system (a private/public partnership when you get down to it) that put passenger railroads out of business and led to Amtrak. I haven’t been on a train in 20 years, but it was actually a very pleasant experience: relatively cheap, comfortable, relaxed, clean, better food than the airlines. It was slow always late, due to freight traffic, but I’ve heard it runs better in the densely populated areas. Anyway, I have had flights canceled and delayed plenty of times as well.
I’ve also never had trouble with the post office. Maybe I’m just lucky, or maybe I can tell the difference between a Jay Leno monologue and real life.
#48…just for laughs, you must be a government worker…at any rate friends of mine just mailed some thing to Israel (tuition for a course at St. George’s College) it wound up in Tennessee…some guy there called him here in Seattle to say it was all ripped and tattered but he could make out the name and the address so he gave a call. Bottom line…the friend spent $30 to send it UPS…and at my office we regularly get misdirected mail for all sorts of other businesses, churches and people in our neighborhood..but as you say its just a Jay Leno monologue.
Passenger railroads actually suffered several setbacks, including a concerted conspiracy by gas and tire companies in the 30s to destroy them (They actually bought rail lines, piled up and burned train cars and ripped up the tracks, in order to further the emergence of America’s car culture). They limped on into the 60s before succumbing to the airlines and the Eisenhower Interstate System. Amtrak kept passenger rail service alive. If the private sector can revive in this respect and be viable no one will be happier than I. But in the absence of such (for the last thirty years or so) I’ll take Amtrak.
Mark, My point about Wright had nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism. It was in direct response to Reactionary’s cries about “immanentizing the eschaton.” That we cannot bring about God’s Kingdom by our own efforts does not mean we cannot be participants here and now in Christ’s new creation, a point Wright makes thoroughly and well. Whether liberal policies (or Wright’s own politics) can qualify for the latter is certainly debatable. Liberal policies obviously cannot accomplish the former, and to that extent Reactionary is correct. But otherwise I simply didn’t think that our aptly-named colleague’s criticism was valid on a theological level.
But then, I’ve never been able to win a debate with you before, certainly not a theological debate. Time for a sherry, I suppose, eh pastah?
Yes, wamark, the dreaded government worker. And if you’ll let me know where you live, I’ll see if we can’t avoid protecting your children/grandchildren.
I apologize for the last comment. It was uncharitable, but it’s 6:30am and I am about to head out for 8 to 10 hours of working hard to make my community safer, for which I earn less annually than most of my friends in their various “private” endeavors. In fact, I earn about 1/3rd of several of them. I’m not really complaining; there is an inherent satisfaction better than money (yes, even than money) in knowing that a woman won’t be getting raped (by one miscreant, at least) and that some child is safer for my endeavors. If that offends you because I get paid from tax money, wamark, tough.
This thread represents remarkable ignorance. I stated that a decent community has health care available, though we could discuss various means to that goal. I was immediately flamed as a liberal who thinks the government is the only solution. That is offensive and as stupid as wamark’s claim that one bad package somehow invalidates the millions of accurate deliveries made every day. Yes, wamark, you are as ignorant as a Jay Leno monologue and way less funny. I wish the my insurance company were as efficient as the post office, which is, as someone noted, a basically private entity in any case. I will say that it’s true, I am more “liberal” than I was 30 years ago, thanks largely to listening to stupid comments like some of those above which forced me to reconsider the scriptures and the traditional social teaching of the Church. Sadly, cant and insult has replaced thoughtful consideration and civil disagreement with some people.
One thing I noticed 30 years ago is that when the scriptures conflict with beliefs, most people chose their beliefs, either discounting the offending scripture or “interpreting” it. That’s obviously true of the reappraisers on this site, and now it’s clear than some of the “reasserters” reject the bible as much.
Now, I really have to get out and contribute to my community. Somehow, I’ll just have to slog on with the disapproval of wamark, Jeffersonian, and Reactionary. Oh, the burden…
Can we take a break from the handwringing and rending of sackcloth to tell me what policy position Obama holds, what unique characteristic he has, to make the welfare state work? Again, what is it that distinguishes him from every other politician promising benefits to be paid for with other people’s money? I mean, other than he’s even better looking than Mitt Romney (assuming such a thing is possible).
#44, it’s not so much defending the current system as not wanting the entire health system subsumed by the Federal Government, leading to higher taxes, reduced services, and reduced personal choice. I personaly would like to see expansion of MSA’s to pay for day to day stuff, and pushing health insurance to high-deductible disaster care. If my hypocondiac aunt wants to go to the doctor every week, as she does, it’s fine cause it’s on her dime. And if, God forbid, she really DOES have that awful disaese she just read about, the pooled resources of her insurance can cover the costs. And I’d be OK with subsidies for those who can’t afford the insurance, something like school vouchers, which they could use to shopa round for the coverange and company they choose as best for them. What I do NOT want is a single payer train wreck like the NHS.
IRNS, it will probably scare you when I say that I’m agreeing with a lot of your posts on politics, or at least parts of a lot of them. As I understand it, employer-subsidized health insurance came about as a tax-free way to increase wages in the post-WWII days when tax rates were very high. I agree with #54, Andrew717. Unlink employment and health insurance, and let free market forces provide products that consumers find meet their needs, with some kind of safety net for the genuinely needy. I think it would provide better service at lower cost than the “roads” model.
Katherine, the market is remarkably efficient in producing low cost and copious supply for all sorts of things. The problem is, health care has certain unique aspects that do not let the market work in a normal fashion.
As for the horror stories about the British NHS, well, how about France?
http://www.eu-digest.com/2007/04/cbsnew-republic-health-care-like.html
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=53e206dd-c286-43b1-9c5b-079e81ab3474