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

[Susan Fertig]

My responses in blue next to your points below.
 
Susan
 

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of David Dunn
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:11 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] What do we mean by a right? To Jim, Dave,et.al.
re: Conservativism


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  Not at all what I meant.  I
was merely fascinated by the wisdom of my young cousin discerning that even
though he was a right-to-life advocate, he could see that was not something
that government should be dictating.  I am a strong rule of law proponent.
But we need to be careful about what should be within the framework of law
and what should not. 

. a society based on wanting people to hold important human values is an
adequate substitute for public policies that institutionalize important
human values  I don't think you need to paraphrase what I said in my message
responding to Ed. I said what I said.  I didn't say what you read into what
I said. 

. the triumph of the human spirit and a strong government are antithetical
Not at all.  I seriously believe in a strong defense capability. :-) 

. what we (OE community?) were about in the past is not what we're about now
Again, don't work it so hard, David.  What I said is what I said. No
particular need to paraphrase and thereby distort.  Many of things we were
always about, we are still about.  But we used to consider it important to
build community more than to build government, I think.  That does not say,
as you have suggested here, that what we were about in the past is not what
we're about now.  That is a distortion of what I said. 

. strong government is synonymous with coercion (health care reform
threatens coercion?)  Not synonomous.  One version of a strong government
could be a government that has built in appropriate restraints on it's power
over its own people -- that is exactly what our founders intended.  Somehow,
I think that has been perverted. But strong government is not (necessarily)
synonomous with coercion. What I was saying is that "we" seem now to be in
favor of creating a powerful government that controls so many aspects of
life that it must by necessity control its normal, law abiding citizens, and
(a) I don't think that is how government should function, and (b) I don't
think that was not how we envisioned building community back in the day -- I
may have completely misunderstood what I was doing back in the 70s with the
EI/ICA, but I thought we were trying to empower people to solve their own
problems and not expect everything to come from the government.  If you rely
on the government for everything, it has power over you. 

. caring about people is the purview of civil society and not of the public
sector  Yes, but not entirely.  Certainly I think the government has a role
in caring for its citizens, but not as the grand public teat that eliminates
all motivation to provide for yourself because everything is taken care of. 

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/20090903/a53190b0/attachment.html>