by VorJack
The New York Times has come out with a very interesting article about the fight over textbook history standards in Texas: How Christian Were the Founders?. It’s a long, weaving article that uses the debate in Texas as a frame to discuss the movement among Conservative Christians to inject more explicit mentions of Christianity into the American History textbooks. The goal is to essentially remake America into the confessionally Christian state they want it to be. The article quotes Cynthia Dunbar:
“We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world.” But the true picture of America’s Christian founding has been whitewashed by “the liberal agenda” — in order for liberals to succeed “they must first rewrite our nation’s history” and obscure the Christian intentions of the founders. Therefore, she wrote, “this battle for our nation’s children and who will control their education and training is crucial to our success for reclaiming our nation.”
The article is fairly even handed, and it makes the point that secularists often ignore just how religious many of the early Americans were. America is steeped in Christianity, and many of the first people to establish communities here had explicitly apocalyptic motives. This would be the City on a Hill, whose purity would act as a beacon for the rest of the world. American righteousness would be like the leaven that spreads to all parts of the globe, and once the world is made righteous then Christ would return.
We tend to skip over much of this in our schools. Religion is inherently controversial, and textbooks publisher prefer to avoid controversy. Secularists would prefer to avoid the religious agendas of many of the first generations. However, the conservative Christians would prefer to avoid discussion of all the freethinkers, religious eccentrics and iconoclasts that came over here. Jefferson, Roger Williams, Thomas Paine and all the rest. Restless minds who constantly questioned and rejected received wisdom.
Or as one scholar in the article puts it, “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.”
But really, all of this is a side issue. Even if the founding generation were all Evangelical Christians to a man (and woman), the document they left us that acts as the cornerstone of our government is a secular one. The founders were a diverse lot and their religious ideas varied from person to person (and in Jefferson’s case, moment to moment.) We’re not going to get anywhere by arguing about whether Patrick Henry’s Christianity cancels out Jefferson’s unitarianism.
A Christian might well support a secular government for religious reasons. For example, Jefferson believed that absolute religious freedom would lead to the evolution and eventual perfection of religion. An atheist might support a religious government, since churches are often seen as the promoters of good social order. So arguing about who was what and when doesn’t help the discussion.
The American Constitution is not a confessionally Christian document. According to Madison’s notes, the framers did not discuss biblical justification or Christian theology while creating it. The legitimacy of the American government is based on the will of the people rather than by divine appointment. This is the central fact that the discussion must start from. Anything else is just a distraction.
I think that schools should try to teach history as even-handedly as possible. In this case they should point out the secular beliefs of the fouding fathers in context with their religions; they should also teach that yes, the vast majority of early settlers in America were Christian – but they should also accurately teach why that was the case. The old “fleeing to America to escape persecution” lie is so hackneyed by now, especially since the truth is that they fled to America because European powers wouldn’t let them persecute everybody else. So yes, teach history evenly and let kids see for themselves how ridiculous their fundie forebears’ beliefs were.
Living in Texas I have followed this topic for a while. The Texas Freedom Network is an organization that was set up to combat the fundie attempts to rewrite the history and science textbooks. Texas also has a fairly old history of freethought that usually gets over looked as well.
The Texas Freedom Network
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=religiousfreedom
“Freethinkers” Of the Early Texas Hill Country
http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/1998/april98/scharf.html
I am so glad to see moderate Texans speaking up-I know your not all right wingers trying to institute mosaic law. What can non -Texans do to help you?
Many of the founding father were religious some were not though. But the founding fathers didn’t intend on his country being a Christan one and the did intend to now have what we call a separation of church and state.
Either way it cuts, isn’t it fascinating how much Americans worship their own flag, constitution and history (real or otherwise)? It’s pure idolatry! Put it in context and ask what needs to be asked: Does it really matter what the founders did or did not intend two hundred and fifty years ago? Surely what matters is what is good for America and the world?
An excellent point Custador.
This I don’t understand: even if the Founding Fathers were all uniformly Evangelical Christians to the bone, why in the world are you supposed to stick with that?
This is a form of dogmatic worship much akin to religion.
Assume yourself perfect, and you will be blind to your errors, with no chance ever to improve.
I wasn’t saying as an argument from authority, I was simply stating as a fact.
I don’t think I’ve particularly argued against your point (unless I’ve misunderstood it).
You’re quite right that the founding fathers in general had some form of religion – but it was most certainly not what most Americans today would call Christianity; they tended not to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they did believe that the concept of organised Christianity as manifested by “the Church” was an evil one.
But as I said already: What they did and did not think is largely academic. Why should we rely on them for appeals to authority when they knew so much less than we know now? In my opinion, doing so harms our arguments by miring us in trivia and preventing us from answering real issues.
One of us miss understood each other, it could have been me (i R dumb).
I didn’t mean we should have a separation of church and state because thats what the founding fathers wanted only that they wanted a separation of church and state (well most, I’m sure there was some that didn’t like the idea)
You are right. What they wanted and didn’t want for this country is academic. The founding fathers intended most of the power to be in the hands of the state, not the federal government. That has been turned around in the two hundred forty four years this country has existed and no one complains about that.
You must not know anyone from the south. Didn’t you know that war of northern aggression was about states’ rights not slavery. Watch out the South will rise again.
P.S. This isn’t my view, but I know people who think this. Also for reference check out the book “Conferderates in the Attic”.
Actually I live in the south, Georgia.
lol, the people that i’m talking about are from Georgia
Yeah, those confederates in the south may really, truly believe they will rise again. Apparently, so does Hugh Hefner (think he will rise again). Don’t make it true. And in both cases, I say *whew*!
I agree with you. If the founding fathers had sacred religious reasons for creating a new country out here, that still doesn’t prove there is a god and that we have to serve this god’s purpose. That just means they were dopes who got it wrong. Luckily, they didn’t put that stuff in the Constitution. If they had, we’d be a different country. Intentions of a supernatural ideal have no bearing, and it’s good they worked it out so that it isn’t the literal foundation, so there should be no argument.
The 1st amendment of the original Bill of Rights covers a few things: speech, free press, right to assemble; it leads off, this very first amendment, with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;“. Make no law… establishment of religion, nor prohibiting free exercise of. Is that not crystal clear? Granted, a lot of American History taught in schools is revisionist myth itself, but that doesn’t exactly call for more of the same. The Constitution in plain language excludes any or all of their religious intentions.
It does matter, in so much as some theories of law are concerned. Many conservatives use the argument of that the original intent of the framers is want so be paramount when arguing about what the constitution means or doesn’t mean. By trying to indoctrinate people into believing that the wall of separation wasn’t what the founders intended, it gives them cover to inject more and more of their religion into the government.
But since when do conservatives care what’s best for America and the world? In my experience they’re too busy looking out for what’s best for themselves anyway.
Some of the supreme court justices, Scalia and Thomas, are judges who strive to interpret the constitution at the time of it’s writing. So they care all out about upholding the values of the late 1700′s and early 1800′s.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg contrast this by saying we have an constant developing standard of things(this in paraphrased horribly).
Law is a funny thing – it’s a lot like religion. It’s based mostly on precedent, and the intention of the writers of the statutes. What is best, or appropriate, for society today is secondary. This is why law and religion usually lag far behind science and the views of most people in society. They are both large, sluggish machines virtually incapable of growth – at best, it’s incremental growth with enormous effort.
Isn’t it also interesting that they worship flags they buy cheap from China and then wonder why the economy is failing?
http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
and this:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm
When people tell me that we are originally a Christian nation and that our laws where based on the ten commandments, I ask them how the reconcile the first commandment which is you shall have no other gods, other than God, with the first amendment which state that you can have any God you want.
Like it :D
Nice point. Similarly, what about “thou shalt not kill” in a country where the death penalty is legal and the military has rarely been at peace in the nation’s entire history? They’re liable to perhaps argue the true translation would be “thou shalt not murder” and state sanctioned killing is ok, but then we’d have to ask why the state cannot sanction abortion, at the very least to preserve life, limb and property if it can sanction dropping atomic bombs to do the same.
Adultery is, of course, legal, and coveting thy neighbour’s goods is pretty much the foundation of the economy. The law of the US is no more based on the ten commandments than the constitution of Vatican City is based on Asimov’s laws of robotics.
Up. I’d say it was more that Direct democracy was simply not a workable alternative at the scale of the US, especial with the technology of the day. Isn’t that why you have the whole electoral collage system for electing the President. Not because anyone really wanted it but because it made practical sense to do this that way when horseback was the fastest way of moving information about the country.
Heck DIrect democracy is not practical even today. The simple fact is that most of us have a too much else to do. So much so that we can’t sepend every day listening to arguments for and against every law that comes befoer the houses of parliament. The Reason the Ancient Athenians could pull it off where:
1) they restricted voting to a small sector ofthe pouplation
2) they where only one city
3) The had slaves to do all the other work.
Personally while I don’t mind the idea city states (though I suspect it might increase corruption) I don’t really want to see 1 & 2 making a comeback.
“The legitimacy of the American government is based on the will of the people rather than by divine appointment. This is the central fact that the discussion must start from. Anything else is just a distraction”…..I would say this statement is an extremely narrow and biased view,considering that the reason we have a represenative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy was to ‘protect’ against mob rule i.e. the ‘will’ of the people. Then there is also writing slavery into the constitution how does that support the will of the people unless you begin from the premise that slaves are not people? Granted I don’t have a problem with the second part of your first sentence as I quoted it(not the first sentence of your post just the one I quoted,VorJack).
How about the religious beliefs of all those indentured servants and transported prisoners? Do those count? We already know that for native Americans and slaves, it was convert or be killed.
Continuing your excellent premise, Holytape, a further look at the ten commandments (a Jewish doctrine, by the way), shows that most would not pass constitutional muster. The First (which you’ve covered), the Second (no swearing), the Third (keep the Sabbath holy), the Fourth (honor your parents) are pretty much covered by the First Amendment. I’ll give you the Fifth (don’t murder). The Sixth commandment (no adultery) would put most lawyers out of business. I concede the Seventh commandment (don’t steal). But the Eighth (don’t lie) – well, we’re back to the lawyers again. And as for the Ninth and Tenth commandments (no coveting)…that’s the basis for capitalism and acquistion – as American a concept as apple pie.
So sorry…if a redneck judge wants to put the commandments in his courthouse, he really can only put up numbers 5 and 7. Saves a lot of space, I guess.
Whoops, I should have scrolled down before posting something rather similar, sorry. Still, I think the 5th can be argued away (as I tried above) and for do not steal, a lot of these folks see taxation as stealing anyway, and that’s constitutionally valid as far as I know.
WarbVIII February 16, 2010 at 8:33 am
“…..I would say this statement is an extremely narrow and biased view,considering that the reason we have a represenative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy was to ‘protect’ against mob rule i.e. the ‘will’ of the people.”
__________________________________
Representative democracy wouldn’t and doesn’t protect minorities. The cure for that is that we have a Republic, based on a Constitution that prevents the majority from passing laws that infringe on the minority (read the Constitution, and you will see that it grants no rights to the people, but instead prohibits government from passing laws that might infringe on certain assumed, fundamental rights). A pure democracy – or any democracy not limited by Constitutional prohibitions on majority rule — would be the most tyrannical form of government ever fashioned.
Long live the Constitutional Republic of the USA.
My point was simply that our gov. is not nor has it ever really been about the will of the people.
I’d say America is the complete opposite of “a beacon of hope”.
Tell that to the Haitians.
They may feel it themselves when they are denied insurance.
Exactly. For all of our problems, we still are a beacon of hope. That’s why there are debates over the problem of immigration and not the problem of emigration.
Not so sure, first you might want to ask the millions of descendants whose ancestors landed at Ellis Island, found meaningful work, prospered and raised families over the generations who left a heritage for their children and grandchildren. Perhaps some of us here have benefited, can identify, are even those descendants. After that, it may be wise to inquire of the millions liberated from the tyranny of the aspirations of evil men by the collective strength and sacrificial resolve of America’s men and women in the ranks of its military, of whom many paid the ultimate price, gave their lives that foreigners, complete strangers might be emancipated, might know liberty, might dream once more.
While certainly not a perfect nation, having its fair share of injustices, wrong-doings, but the measure is made against the whole of it, the collective body of deeds throughout its unique history.
Don’t fall prey to cynicism, its a dastardly thing and taints, severely distorts one’s perspective. See the positive, the good, the bad, the whole of it and then we see aright.
I think it’s a bit unfair to say cynicism is dastardly or severely distorts one’s perspective. It seems that with such touchy subjects, one cannot be critical in part without being thought to be critical in whole. America as a beacon of hope is pretty debatable; much of the world still sees the country as a threat rather than somewhere they want to be, and to invoke the inviting nature of the nation of Ellis Island immigrants which has long since ceased doesn’t really apply to the America of the here and now.
Either way, to entirely discount cynicism is to be unrealistically optimistic. I don’t see how it is something to “fall prey to”; it is a point of view, as much as your own. I’d rather be honest and face what is most often a stark reality than maintain some false or outdated notion of American awesomeness. It isn’t dastardly, it isn’t ‘bad’, it is just that some people see the bad as more important and more worthy of note because of the damage it does. Cynicism is borne out of a desire to make things better. In what manner is that ‘dastardly’?
The following landed in my inbox this morning. I’m not a tea party guy, have no political connections or affiliations (really), but ya gotta admit its kinda funny so….smile! :) lol
Centers for Disease Control Warning
Subject: CDC update.
Very important information has just been made public:
The Centers for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this disease.
The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It’s pronounced “Gonna re-elect ‘I’m.”
The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior involving putting
your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 but now, most people
after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this disease is.
It can be cured easily with a new procedure finally coming on the market called “Vo-tem-out”
You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dosage in 2012 and simply don’t engage in
such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life
as we know it. Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have participated in the early
clinical trials and found “Vo-tem-out” very effective. Many more states are clamoring to participate in these trials.
That’s not particularly funny to me. I can take a joke at the left (the Republican Valentine’s E-Cards were actually quite humorous), but this, aside from being a bit crude and unsubtle, highlights a genuine undercurrent of dangerous insanity within the Republican base. Many of them have been convinced that the Democrats are plotting to wipe them out, and when fear like that boils over, it could get ugly.
Not to mention the usual problem of WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY COMPLAINING ABOUT? The Dems have done sod all since taking power, and these people are acting like the country is under seige and the constitution has been shredded. They can never actually cite any genuine action the Obama Administration has taken that they take issue with. If anyone’s ill, it’s the people fighting invisible monsters.
That’s a good illustration of “cynicism” right there John, all the best to you sir.
It’s not really cynical if it’s the truth.
I know far too many people with the mindset JohnMWhite describes.
“Ugly” doesn’t begin to cover it.
Seems to be some confusion between cynicism and skepticism here…
You mean the same republicans who voted unanimously against the stimulus, because its going to destroy the economy and won’t create a single job, and who are now posing for picture and taking credit for bringing federally funded projects made possible by the stimulus to their districts.
The reason that is extremely unfunny is because Republicans have no real reason to have any beef whatsoever with anything that Obama has done. That leaves one, and only one, reason for them to be so vitriolic: Because he is black. The same people who are wearing tee-shirts calling for Obama’s death are the people who wanted people to be locked up for treason when they pointed out the insanity of Bush / Cheney / Rice’s actions.
These people are disgusting, hateful racists – and the fact that you don’t see that, John, says a lot to me about the “love” which you’re always telling us about.
“Because he is a Democrat.”
Fixed that for you.
Jonjon, for some people it’s column A, for some it’s column B.
Partisan politics is going to destroy the “greatest democracy in the world” one day, I’m sure. The insanity of poor Southern Republicans voting against universal healthcare which would be of enormous benefit to both them and their children proves that to me. I honestly think most of them don’t even know what they’re voting against – but that friendly feller from the GOP with the great hair, nice smile and down-home accent tells them it’s bad so they protest against it in droves.
A friend of mine once said, “The Republican party is so good at getting people to vote against their own self interest, it borders on mind control.”
I don’t think this is always true, but when it comes to things like affordable health care, it definitely seems to be. When I see someone with rotting teeth and five kids explaining how government health care is unacceptable socialism, I just shake my head in wonder. It’s like watching a starving man turn down foodstamps. Way to live your ideals, I guess.
Crap, hit the soshializm moderation block:
A friend of mine once said, “The Republican party is so good at getting people to vote against their own self interest, it borders on mind control.”
I don’t think this is always true, but when it comes to things like affordable health care, it definitely seems to be. When I see someone with rotting teeth and five kids explaining how government health care is unacceptable soshulizm, I just shake my head in wonder. It’s like watching a starving man turn down foodstamps. Way to live your ideals, I guess.
The tribalism of the whole thing is scary. The idea of supporting the Republicans in everything they do *because* they are republicans (and vice versa, of course) is just utterly bonkers!
On the upside, I think most Americans are fairly sane despite the vocal lunatic fringe – and that means that the GOP become more and more unelectable as they become more and more idiotic.
The scary thing is I think they’re becoming more electable. Simply because there is no real opposition. The Democrats have become the left wing of the Republican party. And since they have betrayed a sizable portion of their constituency its going to be hard to get us enthused again. Can you say “President Palin”?
Yes, I wonder about this too. And the republicans seem so angry that Obama is trying to help them obtain health care. It defies belief, and truly has the rest of the world scratching our heads. Is it brainwashing? What could possibly motivate people to fight so hard against their own interests??????
“I think most Americans are fairly sane ”
Nah. It’s more like 50/50.
A great read is “Deer Hunting With Jesus” – can’t remember the author, but goes into the deeply ingrained and willing self-subjugation of the working class to their republican oppressors with the belief that only they can protect god, country, and Nascar; “they” know best, and liberals and a liberal education will tear this great land down. Oh, wait, it’s Joe Badham, I believe, and the folks he writes about are his people, so his insights are fair but not unkind, just painfully honest.
I know right? I mean, Obama’s pretty decent – I’m sure he could be doing more if people weren’t so batshit over him. What has he done of so horrible to deserve all this vitriol, really? Other than be, y’know, sane, well-educated and sane?
(I know, I know. He’s black. *sighs*)
(I know, I know. He’s black. *sighs*)
Nah, I don’t buy it. Clinton had basically the same treatment, vitriol and all. No, Obama’s great sin is to be liberal and sound reasonable all at the same time. Conservatives in America these days have a hard time trusting people who sound reasonable…I can’t tell you why that is; I’m conservative, and I think most of the people on the right are fscking crazy.
But there is a racial cast to a great deal of the vitriol slung at Obama–i.e., “Barack the Magical Negro,” 90% of the whole damn Tea Bag/Party “movement,” the Palin rallies during the election AND the continued “belief” that Obama is either not REALLY an American or is a Muslim.
In a few quarters, sure, the criticism has taken a nasty racial cast, but on the whole it’s boilerplate “HE’S a COMMIE!!!” right-wing stupidity. Most of the complaints over the past year have been (really poor, borderline psychotic) complaints about policy; most of the racial stuff was contained to the campaign.
I suspect the ones shouting “Commie!” are using it as a cover for their real objection.
I find it dispicable that these people have to invent stories and start rumors to rally against obama, who is educated and rational in his decision making. With Bush, we didn’t have to do much inventing – he made it so easy with his knee-jerk policies and actions. And these are the same people who admit that the Bush presidency was a disaster.
“What has he done of so horrible to deserve all this vitriol, really?”
Well that depends on what you mena by “vitriol.” I’ve been a pretty sharp critic of this administration, and the party in power, largely because they haven’t done much despite HUGE promises to do a lot. In my book giving away billions to corporations that largely caused the mess we are in, while refusing to get health coverage to all americans because of a need to be “bipartisan,” is unacceptable.
Yes, and the thinly veiled racial vitriol is distraction from recognition of his more dangerous flaws.
Oh, don’t get me started on the Democratic Party. Holy Hannah, are these people inept, or are they just plain stupid? I’m not as happy with Obama as I’d like to be (where’s my flying car? I was promised a flying car!! ;) ), but he can only work with what he’s got. In this case, he’s got a bunch of obstinate, retrograde, stuck crybabies who (in Martha Coakeley’s case) couldn’t run a campaign if you gave them a 30 point lead. And then he’s got to deal with the Republicans!
Evenso; if he really wanted to he could do a whole lot better.
And I agree with you entirely; that’s not vitriol, that’s a reasonable opinion.
But I (keep in mind I’m in Brazil and not that savvy about American politics, or interested) have heard a lot of clearly insane and racial crazy towards him – from antichrist to communist to terrorist to nazi (which never ceases to amuse me).
Hilarious.
Especially since a false communication from a purported federal agency could be a felony.
Which administration would prosecute you for it?
FBI investigates those crimes I believe.
FCC maybe?
Hmmm… maybe
But I thought the FBI investigated crimes against federal agencies. I could be, and probably am, totally wrong.
I’m just going by how it would be looked at over here, so I’m only guessing. America does things differently in a lot of cases :-)
It would be tough to prove that such an email was sent out with intent to defraud in any case.
I meant presidential administration, not agency.
I had a particular administration in mind when I also realized my own bias and became suspicious of it when I realized both parties have misused prosecution to further their own agendas. So I left it off.
Which news station would prosecute it as insane???
“The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior involving putting
YOUR cranium up YOUR rectum.”
What does this actually mean?
I don’t know, but whenever I try to see things from John’s point of view I find that I can’t fit my head up his arsehole too…
Guess this feat is only for christians who can do ALL things through CHRIST who strengthens them – to stick their own heads into their own and other’s rectums.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. In my view, the diseased era was the 8 years where the national debt ballooned to trillions, housing market fell through the floor, unemployment in double digits, 2 unnecessary wars costing $10B per month and slaughtering many thousands of people; the financial industry virtually collapsing; the US reputation worldwide essentially a joke; where the Constitution became optional; and I could go on and on. It’s incredible to me how people can attempt to re-write history and put the blame on the current administration for the problems created by the last. But I guess it’s the same “reasoning” used in christianity – ie, none.
My favorite money quote on this topic:
“… As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli; Singed into law by John Adams and ratified unanimously by a senate which still included some of the founding fathers
Besides the fact that it very clearly and very directly says that America is NOT a Christian nation, I also love that quote for using the words ‘Mahometan’ and ‘Musselmen’. Doesn’t that last one just sound like some kind of mutant superhero/villain group? Look out, it’s the Musselmen! :D
Well, at the time the treaty was made, the Barbary States were primarily known for being extra-scary pirates, which is about as close to comic-book supervillians as one comes in the 1790′s.
I have just one comment. When I went off to college and had history class (it was a conservative college), the prof. stated the first day of class “some of you will walk out of my class. some of you will walk out in two weeks. some of you will walk out just before you can drop my class.” a few of the students walked out and as he predicted they did walk out. then his next comment, which is the comment that got the first group to walk was “throw away all the hx you were taught in school, its wrong!” from that point on i had a smile on my face because i thoroughly enjoyed the class. it was the best hx class i have ever had and the most honest hx class. x-tians distort hx.
I have read all of the comments here … and it keeps coming back to the same thing. Money. Who has it, and who doesn’t. Those who have it want to keep it … and those who don’t, want to “share the wealth”. This is the basis of all conflict in the U.S. today (health care, taxes, school funding, freedom of speech, CEO salaries, even religion). Most people who have money do not mind paying taxes to a certain degree to support the national infrastructure and the indigent. The essential problem (that the liberals cannot seem to address adequately) is the creation of the entitlement culture and the insidious and continuous expansion of such an entitlement mentality. I have asked many liberals what they think is a “fair” redistribution of wealth … but can never get a straight answer. They usually say, “whatever it takes” or some such obfuscation. There was only one time I saw a liberal really come forward and say it … Michael Moore once said in an interview that a 75-90 percent tax rate “might” be enough to accomplish his political goals. That is naked socialism, pure and simple … and unfortunately the latent intentions of many, many (perhaps the majority) of liberals and Democrats out there today.
As someone who lives in a “socialist” country (Canada), I pay about 40% of my wages in taxes, and I make a pretty good living. I have absolutely no problem with this – in fact, I feel that it is my privilege to do this. Seems like that would be against my self-interest, right? Not in my mind. I live in a country where we are not ruled by fear. Where if (*god* forbid) something happened to me, I know my country would be there for me. This could mean that I’m unable to hold a job (I could go on social assistance), or it could mean that I get a terrible illness that requires surgery or long-term care. I never worry about these things, because they are covered. This climate of no-fear means that mostly, I walk down the streets of my city feeling (relatively) safe. It also means that according to studies, Canadians are healthier, happier, live longer, and have more sex than Americans (not my words – these are legit studies). We are a community – we help each other, and we all benefit from it. Even the wealthy. But I will tell you this – if my government was spending 15 billion dollars a month of my hard-earned money on the war machine, I would be standing in front of our parliament building protesting. And I would not be happy to pay taxes – in fact, I would probably move to France! Mind you, this government is far from perfect, and I certainly didn’t vote for our guy in Ottawa. But I do not mind one bit paying my fair share to ensure that we have health care, subsidized education, social welfare, free resources for the mentally ill, etc. I have a lot of admiration for the US in many ways, but I could not live in a country that did not provide these basics for their citizens. And the kicker is that we spend far less money per-capita on health care than the US does. This is because it is a not-for-profit endeavor, and we have no insurance company profiteers grabbing all the money for themselves and ensuring that it is not distributed for ACTUAL health care for its people.
Tom, I don’t fit your descriptions. I’m someone who is doing quite well. I can afford my own health care insurance, own 2 homes, no debt, I’m doing pretty well. Under my ideal plan, I would, gladly, pay much more in taxes.
I think the claim that I want to ‘share the wealth’ is an incorrect way of looking at the problem. As a business owner, I benefit greatly from a good system of roads, and educated populace, a safe and secure country, a system of laws that are enforced, etc. I think those things should all be funded.
If those critical areas of the government are not well funded, someone in my same position in future will have a much more difficult time achieving the same success. We depend upon each other.
So when I look for money to pay for the program, I look to where the money is. In the US, there is a huge disparity in wealth. Over 90% of our wealth is concentrated in 5% of our population. Most of that money is made by people who just move money around. Bankers, insurance companies, etc. They don’t produce anything, they just enable credit so the producers can fund their factories. That IS an important task, but is it really worth the percent of GDP that we put towards it?
I don’t want money taken away and redistributed. I want programs that will ensure an excellent infrastructure for business to thrive in, a well educated work force to man those businesses, and solid funding for science programs that make the discoveries that will start the next generation of business.
Just a brief note on heath care, and how it relates to entitlement. I don’t see fire departments as entitlement for irresponsible bedroom smokers. I don’t see the military as entitlement for people too cheap to hire their own militias. I don’t see the police as entitlement for people who refuse to hire their own body guards. Health care is that kind of service, it keeps the nation moving by providing security.
As for what is ‘enough’ of a tax rate? That will always change. As industry changes, your tax plan needs to be flexible to change with it. Enough tax is when the services I mentioned are well funded, which they aren’t today. Our energy grid is 50 years out of date, our telecom lines are nearly overloaded, our road and bridge system is in a serious state of decay, and our public schools are in need of serious overhaul (in physical structure as well as ideologically. If you want an example of a school system I find excellent, look up Finland)
We are standing on the backs of the progressive high tax structure from the 1940′s through the 1970′s. During that time, we taxed the wealthy with progressively higher rates, up to 90% for people making over 4 million per year. At that time we built the freeway system, radically ramped up the education system, and had major government spending programs that launched many of the major companies today like Boeing, Northrop Grumand, Halliburton, NASA, as well as the spinoffs like Thermos and Velcro. Our success today stands on the backs of all that government spending, but we pat ourselves on the back and say its just due to our own hard work. We owe a debt to our future, because of the entitlement we gained from the past.