Talking Fairness

Perhaps the most mainstream American liberal, right now, is a man running for the United States Presidency named Barack Obama. So, I will use his stance/voting record on issues as my source of an example of liberal agenda.

Now, the central idea of this article is the role of government and the motivations for why people think it should take a certain role. In general a liberal is defined as someone who wants government to stay out of moral (day to day activities) issues, an extreme of this, for example, is no censorship at all on television/in movies, etc., and also wants government monitored economy; for example the most liberal of a person is a socialist, a system that gives control of all production (of all the economy) to the government or “whole of society”.  

   Now, there are a few reasons for someone to be liberal (similar to conservativism) and probably more than I can imagine, but I conceive of two broad reasons. First, (and I want to take the time to point out that I speak to true liberals, not the people who simply want to do whatever they want. I think there are differences)… First, it speaks to how a person wants to live. Government monitoring standardizes, and if government monitered every day life, every day life would be standardized. And standardization is really only good for certain ideas and usually efficiency is central, and I think that’s a key idea in the liberal ideology, that of opposing the idea that efficiency is important enough that the beauty of and in the world gets forgotten, for its sake. And it is there, that there exists beauty in every day life, on the ‘nuts and bolts’ level of how people interact and go about their lives, that a liberal person cherishes, to a degree. Perhaps best said in short that human choice is beatuiful. Second, is a variation of the first and drives more toward politics. Fear of political government corruption. This is separate from concerns that efficiency will take away from personal choice, because it’s stronger, conveying the idea that government has to be restricted by law because if it isn’t, then it will discriminate and oppress, inherently. And here is where I’ll bring in Senator Obama to talk about certan specific issues; health care and FISA (national security), at least.

    Obama, like previous mentioned, is a beacon for American Liberalism, which admittedly isn’t very competitive with European liberalism, but nonetheless I am in America and 3 or 4 days a week would willingly call myself so, so I’m exlimplifying Obama. (My point encompasses all liberals to the left of Obama, though). On the issue of health care, Obama, like liberals, want to reform laws to permit the government the scope of giving health care universally to those who cannot afford it; this would include lowering the price of health care, as well, I think. Simultaneously, Obama and liberals alike,  condemn the idea of reforming laws that would give this same government more scope in monitoring suspected threats as a means to strengthen national security. And here is where I say big government doesn’t fit, sensibly, into the liberal ideology. People cannot fear government… at the same time they want to trust it with more of their and other’s money, can they? No, it’s idiotic, absolutely. If people are going to be cynical of government when it comes to what government would do with the new FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), then shouldn’t a cynic keep that mindset when it comes to what the government would do with more money? A good example of this could be the border security act of 2006 that allowed a 700 mile fence to be constructed, but was not funded for a while and then is now being constructed at a controversial pace. Should not a cynic be a cynic?

  Health care and FISA amendments would reform laws because right now both would probably be unconstitutional. Government ran health care, grinding the line with the 9th or 10th amendment, somewhat at least, and FISA amendments the 4th amendment.

 I’m not suggesting that universal health care legislation should be opposed because of fear of big government, what I am saying is that things like FISA should not be opposed because of fear of government. And I’ve tried to say this by pointing out the contradiction in liberal ideology in expecting the government to making life better with one issue, but fearing how bad life will become if that same government does something else with a separate issue. Civil liberities and rights are not dependent on government restriction. But back to the point, even if you believe that they are dependent on government restriction, you cannot then unrestrict that same entity, it just doesn’t make any sense.

In conclusion, the second reason to be a liberal, I gave, doesn’t make sense when thinking about the general idea of what makes a person liberal. You cannot fear big government in everyday life, but want the same government to be big in the economy. And likewise, if the second reason to be a liberal is to be ignored because it isn’t sensible, then, we still have the first reason, and that reason wouldn’t oppose FISA amendments because the amendments do not affect 99.9% of the American public’s way of living day to day activities in the minds of those who aren’t cynics.

And a more recent development, I’ve come across two conservative issues that I’m concerned about. For a very long time, Conservatives have been screaming about their second amendment rights. But more recently, they’ve began screaming about God’s will and how there needs to be a 28th amendment restricting marriage to a man and woman. Now, I’ve yet to attain enough infomation to state a firm stance on these two things, but on the face of things, I’m asking how’s owning a gun holy? And even further, how’s it not unholy and indeed very secular? And if it is so, then you must choose on which foundation you use to form your principles. I’ll be asking devout religious people about guns and so on, and come back to this, hopefully, later on.

   For the sake of transparency, I guess, I disagree with universal health care because I think it would require too much money from certain people, and take away from the individuality of Americans, even more, taking that much money from someone; but I do think reform is needed in health care and the insurance industry as a whole, something noone is talking about. I support the FISA amendments because I trust the government to use them for security purposes and not oppresive purposes. I don’t necessarily want to ban guns, but I think great reform is needed. Oh, and same sex marriage has my vote. I think the term marriage is religious, but I don’t have any problems with the government using the word in spite of that, but the point for me is the rights that go along with a “marriage”. So, whatever it’s called I’m in favor of two adults getting married and getting those rights.