Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Matt Yglesias makes a good point:
- In domestic politicy, right and left tend to have basically different goals. The left is trying to construct a well-designed social welfare system and the right is trying to keep the government as small as possible.
|
- Bullshit. Atticus' S.S. dodge aside, I assume you mean welfare. The "left" is trying to get elected by continuing failed programs that it can hold up to some of its special interest groups as evidence of its caring. The "right" is trying to help those same groups by saying "why not try entering the work force?"* I admit that many on the right take this position to keep their groups voting for them. Of course, much of the right is offended by taxation at the extreme levels. Taking away programs that require tax dollars is the response, and I suppose meets your "small government" theory.
Quote:
Foreign policy goals, however, are fairly uncontroversial, at least in a general sense. None of us want to see nice democratic countries overrun or innocents slaughtered in terrorist attacks and we would all like to see other nations become freer, more democratic, more prosperous, and so forth. But it's not totally clear how you get from here to there.
The tendency, though, is to blow up every policy dispute into some massive gap of principle. "You looked at the Iraq War and decided it was a bad idea -- well, you must hate freedom!" Well, no, I don't.
|
No one I know, even on these boards, has said an anti-Iraqui war voice is one who hates freedom. Maybe this guy now feels guilty, or sheepish, and tries to spin this idea, but he shouldn't feel bad. The peopel who opposed the war feared possible (still possible) consequences on several levels, okay, understood. I doubt that many opposed the war to keep Saddam in power (besides Chirac, the bastard).
*snide "size of workforce" joke omitted in spirit of the holiday.
Threaded Mode