Being somewhat of a woman without a party these days - and having no plans last
Saturday night - I flipped on the Libertarian Party Convention on C-SPAN. Watching them I was reminded of Walter's (thank you, Aaron) remarks about the nihilists in The Big Lebowski - "say what you want will ... at least it has an ethos." They may have nominated Bob Barr for President but the Libs do have a couple of things going for them: they can get all of their delegates into the large ballroom of a hotel and they apparently pay for their presidential campaign in much the same way they that nominees for prom king and queen did at my high school - and they seem to pretty much know what they want and how they would go about getting it. Of course, they've never even come close to winning a national election but dollar for dollar spent it might appear that they are getting more bang for their buck than either of the mainstream parties.
A few years back - either on a lark or in a snit - I visited the Libertarian website where they are kind enough to have a little quiz to determine whether or not one is cut out to be a member of their party. Being pretty much a believer in the right of consenting adults to do what they please with other consenting adults as long as their actions don't hurt others, I took the test. Well, nothing like being told, "Hey, you're not our kind." Seems I was a little long on social programs for their tastes. At least they told me right off. It took the Democrats 36 years to say, "You're gotten too old and you have ovaries and you just plain annoy us."
After a couple of glasses of apple ale and taking the Libertarian test again (I passed but now I'm not sure they pass my test) it occurred to be that one of the problems I may have is that I'm no longer sure what it is that I expect from government and - even worse - I'm no longer sure government can provide it or that I even trust it to try. And I'm also not sure that most voters know what it is they expect from government, they just want something different from what it's doing know but that approach kind of seems like the one that got us here in the first place.
So, over the course of the next few weeks, I'm going to use this blog to work out - or not - what it is that I feel government is supposed to do and how it is supposed to do it - from health care to immigration to education; but first I need a glass of apple ale. Feel free to chime in while I'm gone.
It wasn't The Dude who said that, it was his rolling partner, Walter P. Sobcek who, after watching his buddies die face down in the mud, felt that there was a line in the sand which you do not cross.
Reply to this
Thank you, Aaron, for being the first to correct this old lady - it was Walter, not the Dude and if I had thought the line through in my head I would have hear John Goodman's voice. I don't usually go back and make corrections to my blog but I'm going to make a correction in this case, otherwise I am sure I will have more comments than I can handle.
Thanks again.
Reply to this
Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...
Reply to this
Kathy, thank you for your comments plus the useful information and links.
As an HRC supporter I, of course, would like nothing more than to see her nominated; unfortunately, I do not see that happening even though I do believe she is the more"electable" option. Also, I don't believe that any member of the party should hold more sway over the nomination process than the individual voters do - I know even without the super delegates that there is still a powerful party elite that does have more say than the average voter but I wish that were not so. I'm also not a big supporter of caucuses since I think it denies a person the ability to vote in secret which undermines the idea of voting without peer pressure (such as an older woman feeling pressured to vote for HRC or an African American person feeling pressured to vote for Senator Obama).
Reply to this
It's a darn good thing *I* wasn't drinking apple ale when I read this post 'cause I would have choked on it when I got to, "It took the Democrats 36 years to say, 'You're gotten too old and you have ovaries and you just plain annoy us.'" Too funny - and too, too true.
As for exploring what government is and is not supposed to do, I think that will be a fascinating topic. I suspect I'm to your right on a number of issues so I'll be interested in where you go with this - and am looking forward to putting in my two cents worth.
One starting point might be to define clearly which government you want to consider: Federal only? I know States' rights has a very bad rap for very valid reasons but the concept is crucial to answering questions like, "What the heck is the Federal government doing regulating medical marijuana?" (Okay, maybe not to the right on *every* issue.) And, oddly enough, to answering questions about health care. If we have national health insurance, what happens to the rules individual states have promulgated about issues like forbidding "drive-through" mastectomies or requiring insurance companies to provide for psychiatric treatment?
I assume part of this exercise may be in hopes of deciding how to vote in November. I read about a wild idea this morning: Hillary Clinton as John McCain's VP. I know there are a million reasons it will probably never happen but, well, wow!
Reply to this
Thank you, E, for your comments and may I suggest some apple ale?
Look forward to your two cents once I figure out what my two cents are - and yours are welcome even before I do because sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake.
The longer I live the more I find that "right" and "left" very rarely are appropriate ways to describe my overall political outlook. For instance you and I apparently agree on the medical marijuana issue and you might be surprised (I know I am) about some of my stands on other issues. After a lifetime spent being a "tax and spend" liberal I find myself thinking more and more than many solutions are better found in the private sector.
Your point on federal v. state is well taken and that I think might be a good starting point for thought - just what is the federal government supposed to govern? I strongly believe that the more people who are insured and the more portable that insurance is, the better for everyone from both a moral and a purely economic point of view. However, can we as a nation ever get there and do the states have a right to decide what services will be offered, particularly if the state is mandated to pay for some of the services? Is it possible to have national minimums that individual states then build on? How can we ever build a national insurance system with so many lobbying forces at work? After all, witness what they did to the Medicare drug benefit. Should it be approached through the private sector and can the private sector be trusted to provide it? What about retired employees if a company should go bankrupt? What about companies that would be seriously stressed by providing insurance? And what is the personal responsibility for having health insurance? Can a person be forced to buy it and if he/she doesn't choose to buy it when it is made affordable and available, does the state then have to take care of that person?
Oh, oh my brain is full. Time for apple all - maybe not, it's not even one p.m.
Reply to this
I’d like to take your last two questions first because I think they’re key to anything even approaching “universal” health insurance coverage. I believe you must mandate the purchase of health insurance for two reasons. First, as a society we are simply not willing to let people die - or even suffer - because they don’t have health insurance. We don’t do it now - at least legally - and I can’t imagine us being willing to do it in the future. Since we’re going to provide health care when anyone gets sick, I believe we have to require everyone to have health insurance.
Second, if we don’t mandate health insurance many people who are healthy are not going to buy it until they’re sick. That means a disproportionate number of people with health insurance will be those who are ill. I don’t just advance this argument to argue that the many healthy should pay for the few sick. It’s also a longitudinal issue. Somewhere quite a while back I stumbled across an article that talked about how universal health insurance represented a transfer of wealth from the well to the sick. That’s true if you think of universal health insurance as a snapshot. I think of it as a motion picture. I’ve had health insurance one way or the other for my whole life: first through my parents; then through my college; then through my jobs; and now as an individual. I paid when I was healthy so I could collect when I was ill.
As for companies providing health insurance, I think it’s crucial to disconnect health insurance from work. Under our current system, if I become too sick to work and lose my job, I also lose my health insurance. (Yes, there is a COBRA period but 18 months is nothing is you’re seriously chronically ill). That seems nonsensical. Plus companies may be becoming one of the strongest proponents of universal health insurance: they’re tired of bearing the costs of health insurance for their employees because it impacts their competitiveness in international markets. They can be the counterweight to the lobbying groups that might want to derail universal health insurance.
That’s all I have room for with the 3000 character limit. Here’s an interesting example of a Federal health insurance plan:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1632649,00.html
Overall I really like this plan but I have a few issues with it, also. I’ve written about 4000 more words partly about what I like and dislike about this plan but mostly about a plan I came up with. I’ll reserve my additional characters, though, and let you get a word in edgewise.
Reply to this