User Comments

1. 

   10/07/07

   libdrone

   Having just taken the time to completely re-read the entire thread I have to say that given the number of thoughtful and substantive participants and the many good arguments for and against a number of possible solutions, this thread really does represent the Best of Blog Catalog discussions and its inclusion in this space is very much in keeping with the theme the group was created for.

   [reply]
2. 

   10/08/07

   clioandme (guest)

   Well, I'm still trying to get over Dane equating Hillary's plans with socialism. Or should I have posted this comment in the "Do you think I'm full of it thread?"

   [reply]
   1. 

      10/08/07

      clioandme (guest)

      I just started to, but I think I'd rather hear how you think you're right. Your use of the term "socialism" sounded like sloganeering more than thinking, but your desire for dialog here suggests that perhaps you have an idiosyncratic definition of socialism of which I am unaware. Since I've also heard references to Libertarianism, I suppose much of our current state might even look "socialist" to you. But that is just speculation on my part. Instead of my attacking a straw man, how about you explaining your terms? Then I can be sure we are talking about the same thing.
3. 

   10/09/07

   clioandme (guest)

   Given that pretty standard definition of socialism, I do not understand the leap from the points outlined at www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/ to your statement that "her policies lead inexorably to the goal of a socialist economy." The burden of proof still lies with you.

   [reply]
4. 

   10/09/07

   clioandme (guest)

   Fair enough, though I am still trying to figure out the socialist angle. The reason? You're not the first person I've heard who sees plans to expand government involvement in health coverage as some sort of backhanded way to socialize medicine. It is also coming up in the debates about SCHIP. I understand fiscal conservatism. I understand arguments in favor of a limited state. But I do not get the accusations that more government involvement will "inexorably" lead to government-rationed health care. There are too many intermediary steps in the logic that need explaining. And maybe I will never be able to get it, since such arguments seem to entail some sort of seeing into the future, which I don't think human beings are any good at.

   [reply]
5. 

   10/09/07

   clioandme (guest)

   I fail to understand why capitalism must be 100% laissez faire. If it were, we could turn over everything to a handful of corporate giants. Should we throw out all anti-trust laws? (On a tangential note, I do not see why we give corporations "person" status.) Viewing politics as a dichotomy between capitalism and anti-capitalism doesn't work. Democrats are all for capitalism. But there need to be rules. Without them you risk massive abuses and even social stability.
   
   But you are using a line of argument that has a long tradition in this country. I'll be glad when enough people finally start seeing through it.

   [reply]
6. 

   10/09/07

   clioandme (guest)

   Questions? I guess you've given me enough to go on here. I see Senator Clinton as pretty much in the political center of the Democratic party at present. I also see her as a pragmatist, like her husband, not an ideologue. An example of that would be the major shift in her approach to crafting health care policy. Now she's got many segments of corporate America on her side. Another example is her stance on Iraq, which really annoys groups like Move On.
   
   I'm still not sure I'll choose her in the Democratic primary, but I'm a lot more comfortable with her now than I used to be. She appears to be losing the polarizing effect she had earlier. She's also tough as nails, which is a good thing for the job she wants.
   
   But it's early days. I have not yet formulated a positive characterization that I can explain very well. I'm just clear about which party I'll be voting for and what rhetoric is wearing thin with me.
   
   My thinking is also somewhat colored by my years of living in Germany, whose Christian Democratic (read: conservative) social policies make many of our Democrats look positively conservative in comparison.

   [reply]
   1. 

      10/09/07

      clioandme (guest)

      The European experience offers another perspective that might interest you. Like here in the US, it built up a welfare state, but much more extensively than we ever did. (Caveat: don't equate "welfare state" with "welfare" as we have known it. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state .) But globalization and demographic challenges (low birth rate and growing imbalance between number of retirees and workers) are undermining the European welfare states. Ironically, Social Democrats need the nation state to promote their program, but the nation state in charge of its own economy is increasingly a thing of the past. Social Democrats are learning that internationalism and the welfare state do not mix. And they're changing their ways towards much more market-friendly solutions. Example: New Labor in Britain. The SPD in Germany has gone the same way.
      
      What does this have to do with the question at hand? Well, Republican fears that increased government involvement will lead to socialization do not account for globalization and the massive fiscal challenges that the retiring baby boomers are presenting us with. Simply put, there is only so much government can do. Democrats like Clinton know this. The trick question then becomes how we use the resources available, not how we change the economic system from capitalist to its antithesis.
7. 

   6/15/09

   Vaughann722

   Dear friends; I'm writing to invite you all to check out my blog: 'Left Focus'. We provide progressive perspectives from the Left: including liberal, social democratic, democratic socialist and Green viewpoints.
   
   While the blogmaster is based in Australia, we also welcome perspectives from around the world - including the US. Our blog has a mixture of Australian, American and international perspectives.
   
   Pls feel welcome to visit us regularly. And if you're a capable left-wing writer - maybe even approach us with ideas for articles... Further - if you're sympathetic you're also welcome to give us a positive rating, and positive feedback. Again - the name of out blog is: Left Focus.
   
   most sincerely,
   
   Tristan

   [reply]