[Oe List ...] What do we mean by a right? To Jim, Dave, et.al. re: Conservativism

[David Dunn]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Susan Fertig wrote:

> Ed, Something in what you said below triggered a memory of a recent  
> exchange I had with a young cousin of mine.  He is more right wing  
> than I am -- Yah, I know, most of you can't imagine what that would  
> even look like.  He is very against abortion, but he said he didn't  
> want it made illegal, because he wanted people to want not to get  
> abortions rather than being prohibited by law from it. I guess thats  
> the way I feel about a lot of things.  I want the human spirit to  
> triumph -- somehow I thought that was what we were all about back in  
> the day, not creating a stronger government to force people to do or  
> not do things.  Some of it is necessary of course, just for physical  
> safety and for things like infrastructure (roads and the like), but  
> the things that have to do with caring about people should be  
> connected to civil society.

Colleagues:

This is the sort of interchange that drives me a little crazy. I  
believe that I read the above to suggest that:

• the rule of law contravenes freedom of choice

• a society based on wanting people to hold important human values is  
an adequate substitute for public policies that institutionalize  
important human values

• the triumph of the human spirit and a strong government are  
antithetical

• what we (OE community?) were about in the past is not what we're  
about now

• strong government is synonymous with coercion (health care reform  
threatens coercion?)

• caring about people is the purview of civil society and not of the  
public sector

I freely admit that I may be totally misunderstanding your points,  
Susan. And I strenuously declare that I am no apologist for either  
political party, for the current administration, for liberalism or  
conservatism, or for this or that proposal for health care reform.

If we agree that our context and vision is the triumph of the human  
spirit, my question is what is the social strategy that assures that  
“all the goods, all the decisions and all the gifts belong to all” vis- 
a-vis health care?

All the earth belongs to all remains a powerful mantra that holds out  
a vision of effective participation, free expression, inclusive  
polity, equal access, and equal rights. Universal health care seems to  
be a logical expression of that kind of value.

The means to this end is legitimately a matter of debate, but the  
debate ought to proceed on the basis of experience, facts, goals and  
objectives, and consensus problem solving rather than shouting,  
misinformation, and actions calculated to cause one's political or  
ideological opponents to fail.

I grant that your weren't engaging in any of the above, Susan, but the  
discussion that we need is a discussion that unpacks all of the  
assumptions, values, premises, etc. of both sides in the present  
public debate. I read George Will and David Brooks with every bit the  
attention and interest as I do David Ignatius and Maureen Dowd.  
There's truth within that broader constellation somewhere.


David

---
David Dunn
dmdunn1 at gmail.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090902/885212ea/attachment.html>