Is Dick Gephardt actually criticizing Bill Clinton?

[genderbender]

You're no fun...

KM - You make much too much sense. You're taking all my fun away. It's the fact idealogues take things so seriously that makes it so much fun to prick their balloons and listen to them scream. We're all just having fun here, right? The only serious thing is sex and we seem to have quite a bit of fun with that too!

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Where are you going, young man, and how did you become a Republican apologist?

I've noticed you use the term "Republican apologist" in a number of your posts. While I proudly admit I'm a member of the party and that I often defend it, I don't accept your label. After all, apologists are those who defend a cause for which most people would be ashamed. Defenders of morally abject political systems such as communism and fascism are apologists. So is anyone who speaks favorably of acid-wash jeans (note: joke). What really does the Republican party have to apologize for (except perhaps a certain caucasian stiffness on the dance floor)? Is defending the Republican party apologism, while defending the Democratic Party something else?

If it is, it would seem very strange. After all, as RisiaSkye astutely observed in her post last week, the political distance between the two major parties isn't nearly as great as the debate here and on other recent threads would suggest. In European countries with proportional representation systems, political power is divided amongst many political parties covering virtually the entire political spectrum. Neo-fascists and communists share the legislative floor with representatives of more moderate parties.

The same broad range of political beliefs exists here in America (to which debate here on lit surely attests), and yet when you examine American politics, the rainbow of the ideological spectrum is focused into two very thick bands, one lying just left of center and the other lying just right. Most of the emotional rhetoric lies at the poles of this spectrum, colored in bright conservative reds and liberal violets, but the actual practice of government lies in the muddy colors between, much of which is common to both bands.

The central political debate in our country today is, of course, "what exactly should government do now that its tax receipts far exceed its expenditures?". The Republican solution includes tax cuts, payments to shrink the national debt, and initiatives to strengthen the popular social welfare programs social security and medicare. And what do the Democrats propose? That's right. The same list: tax cuts, debt repayment, and social welfare spending. There are, certainly, planks of each party's platform that are flatly rejected by the other (e.g. the Republicans opposition to abortion is almost univerally opposed by Democrats), but these are small compared to the number and import of issues upon which the two parties agree in principle, but disagree on orders of priority.

What ideological differences exist between the two parties are blunted by their constant polling and focus-grouping. Both sides are constantly engaged breaking down their big top in an attempt to rebuild it over the moderate electorate. So for all of the talk of pandering to the special interests, when the going gets tough, the tough go to the middle. Why would they pander to their bases? Are blacks going to abandon the Democrats no matter how little the Dems continue to do for them?

All I've read from you so far concerning politics are your repeated criticisms of Bush's proposal, the Republican party, and the right half of the political spectrum, mostly focusing on economic issues. I haven't read your alternative, though. What should Bush do?

Do you favor the Democratic Plan of "moderate" tax cuts, along with a faster repayment of the national debt? Or should the poor get a tax cut while rates remain the same for the rich? Or should we raise rates on the rich? Do you yearn for the "good ol' days" of the 90% tax bracket? (abolished by JFK, by the way - not a Repub') Would you ever lower taxes for both groups if it was possible to make the cuts equitable? Is there even such thing as an equitable tax cut?

As for me, whether the tax cuts are closer to the Republicans' 1.6 trillion or the Dems' 1.0 tril, it's an improvement and I'm not about to look a gift tax cut in the mouth. (Not that it really is a gift, mind you, since the money belongs to the taxpayer in the first place). If the lower number goes through, I'll be mildly disappointed that the cuts weren't bigger, but I'll take comfort in the fact that we're moving in the right direction.

This is an extremely long-winded answer to your question, but the crux of my philosophy is simple. I agree with Churchill: Of all the forms of government ever devised, Democratic government is the least bad. I neither oppose a limited welfare state nor do I believe that necessary social services currently provided by the government could ever be entirely replaced by private charity, but I'm a firm believer that it has been individuals, both alone and in groups, who have made our country what it is - the most prosperous nation in the world. Our government certainly deserves much of the credit, but most of that credit should be given for what the government has not done, and not for what it has. It has largely avoided hindering innovation and progress, allowing talented people to achieve their goals and improve the general quality of life.

I also don't oppose a graduated income tax, but I do believe the current rates are punitive. On top of that, I believe that the current economic situation makes now a particularly apt time for a tax cut. Punitive tax rates can be bearable in prosperous economic times like they were in the '90's, but when consumer spending freezes up due to fear of bad times ahead, a tax cut is in order.

I'm curious whether your interest in medicine is because the money is good, or you have a chance to do good. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive...

I agree that they're not mutually exclusive, and I'll answer this way: if I was most interested in making money, I would not be in medicine. I'd be in Silicon Valley, on Wall St. or involved in some other sort of business enterprise. There are much easier ways to make much more money than medicine. (And most of them don't involve bodily fluids. ) But will I enjoy the lifestyle the profession affords me? Certainly.

I've sacrificed considerable time, expended great effort, and incurred significant debt in pursuit of this dream. I do this for a selfish reason: because I love medicine. I can think of no better way to use my talents and fulfill my personal obligations to serve my fellow man and relieve some of the suffering that's so great in this world.

But will I cash my checks?

Every last one.