liberals will vote against their own interest as much as conservatives in my opionion

[getatnard]

No secret I'm a ron paul supporter but I got to thinking. Most liberals disagree with him on things he as president couldn't control or do and agree with him on things he would be able to do yet they will pull that lever for obama in nov. Are you willing to look those brow
n people in the eye and tell they you rather they get bombed back to the stone ages so you will be able to say I voted for a democrat. A democrat with the same foreign policy stance as the republicans you hate so much

[Philosopher Dan]

Prof. getatnard:

I wonder if I could get a bit of clarification on your position.

Are you claiming the following:

A) Ron Paul's economic and domestic agenda would be something which, were he elected President, he could not hope to accomplish.
B) Paul's foreign policy agenda would be something which, were he elected, he could accomplish.
C) Self-identified liberals agree with him on B, but disagree with him on A.
D) But since A could never happen, and B could, C ought to vote for Paul in order to ensure B.

Is that the position you are staking out?

[getatnard]

Presidents are not kings. They can sign bills and are the commander in chief of the military. Its seems to me you would push for a liberal congress and a president who you agree would make a better military leader. It seems that liberal disagree with him on economics but he doesn't have the power to make a free market appear.
He has the power to accomplish his overseas agenda but almost no power domestically. I'm tired of liberals telling me I don't care about people yet they will vote for someone who supports our current foreign policy and stays bombing the shit out of brown people.

[March in Georgia]

Originally Posted by getatnard

He has the power to accomplish his overseas agenda but almost no power domestically.

You wouldn't mind expanding on this point, would you?

[getatnard]

As president he could pull out of foreign conflicts and bring the troops home without congress permission. Anything he wants done domestically will have to go thru congress first. If you have a democrat lead congress then what liberals fear the most couldn't happen.

[Damage]

[March in Georgia]

Originally Posted by getatnard

If you have a democrat [sic] lead congress then what liberals fear the most couldn't happen.

And what is it liberals fear most?

[jfstorm]

I'm still amazed that you think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have any meaning with regards to the current political climate in the USA.

[Lance in Manassas]

Frankly, I can't vote for Paul because his libertarianism seems to end with the Government interfering with a woman's economic relationship with her health care.

Also, liberal as I am, I'm not really in support of pulling America out of the world. So that's a false assumption.

But I will concede the point of your title. One of the trusism of liberalism is that WE vote against our narrow economic interests to make the lives of more people better, which often repays us (if not 100%) with a better economy overall.

Of course libertarians vote Republican against their economic interest and make the lives of RICH PEOPLE BETTER by making their own worse.

Bit of a difference there..

[CMAC]

You may have a point on Paul as president, even a good one, but I'm not so sure we can assume a moderate to left of center congress. In that case the presidents economic and domestic policies do matter in what actually gets put into law.

[Philosopher Dan]

Actually, I think Prof. getatnard is making a fairly strong point here.

Presumably, the reason those who self-identify as liberal, or those people generally referred to as "liberals" (despite the rather large amounts of gray in this area, as Prof. Jon rightly noted), hold a position contrary to Rep Paul's is the following. The libertarianism Paul claims to endorse seems not to show sufficient concern for the poor, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable (elderly people with their Medicare, etc). Liberals have a concern for these groups. So they don't support the position.

However, liberals (to continue to use the term) also hold the view that the US military should not be used except in the case of a legitimate existential threat in a Just War-type situation. Occupying other countries, bombing them, etc, also harms people who ought not to be harmed.

The well-being of people in other countries is not objectively worth more or less than the well-being of people in this country. So if we can, we ought to pursue policies that respect the well-being of such people.

Now it is a basic postulate of ethics that ought implies can. That is, to say we ought to do X implies that we can, in fact, do X.

And this is where I think our colleague's argument really turns.

If it is the case that we can take a morally appropriate action, then we should take that action. We can take actions which would be of benefit to those in other countries via a change in our foreign policy. So we should take such action - or, in this specific case, elect the person who would take such action. And, since the person in question, Rep Paul, won't cause the harm liberals fear domestically, because no President can change the policies liberals would protect, but would bring about the benefits they agree with in terms of foreign policy, then liberals ought to be supporting him. And the failure by liberals to do so both betrays a lack of clear thinking and something akin to hypocrisy.

I think that's the best version of Prof. getatnard's argument that I can give. I believe this is a pretty good argument, too.

However, I think Prof. get underplays how much effect a President can have domestically and overplays how much effect a President can have internationally. It may be the case that a President Paul could not bring about a pure libertarian economic circumstance. But a President Paul with a Republican Congress could effect massive cuts to a wide variety of programs most Americans, but liberals in particular, find beneficial and desirable (a round of Democratic filibusters not-withstanding!). It would also not likely be the case that a President Paul could reverse in 4 years the course of American foreign policy over the last 25 years.

This would mean the rankings of benefits and harms from a decision to elect someone like Ron Paul is muddier than our colleague would have it. I still think it's a very good point, though.

[Lance in Manassas]

I'm not going to say Ron Paul is another Ronald Reagan.

But conservatives to this day think Ronald Reagan proved, proved his Lafer Curve tinkle down economics worked, and the solution to more problems in America is simply to tinkle on America more.

You just can't explain to conservatives that Ronald Reagan had to reverse lots of the tax cuts he made to increase revenues that weren't being made up by economic growth, and even then ran record deficits.

I'm just not willing to help put another such idiot into the White House to stop wars that the current resident is winding down.

Get, remember, we're out of Iraq.

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by getatnard

No secret I'm a ron paul supporter but I got to thinking. Most liberals disagree with him on things he as president couldn't control or do and agree with him on things he would be able to do yet they will pull that lever for obama in nov. Are you willing to look those brow
n people in the eye and tell they you rather they get bombed back to the stone ages so you will be able to say I voted for a democrat. A democrat with the same foreign policy stance as the republicans you hate so much

I know you meant this, but be honest... you were a bit lit up when you wrote this...

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

I'm not going to say Ron Paul is another Ronald Reagan.

But conservatives to this day think Ronald Reagan proved, proved his Lafer Curve tinkle down economics worked, and the solution to more problems in America is simply to tinkle on America more.

You just can't explain to conservatives that Ronald Reagan had to reverse lots of the tax cuts he made to increase revenues that weren't being made up by economic growth, and even then ran record deficits.

I'm just not willing to help put another such idiot into the White House to stop wars that the current resident is winding down.

Get, remember, we're out of Iraq.

Yes, we're out of Iraq. We were promised, and against his wishes, he got us mostly out of Iraq.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by Tritium

Yes, we're out of Iraq. We were promised, and against his wishes, he got us mostly out of Iraq.

You keep making the case that HE wanted to keep us in Iraq because he was negotiating an extension of SOFA.

Okay, here's my case. The Military wanted to stay in Iraq and Barrack Obama blew the negotiations deliberately so he could pull them all out.

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

I'm not going to say Ron Paul is another Ronald Reagan.

But conservatives to this day think Ronald Reagan proved, proved his Lafer Curve tinkle down economics worked, and the solution to more problems in America is simply to tinkle on America more.

You just can't explain to conservatives that Ronald Reagan had to reverse lots of the tax cuts he made to increase revenues that weren't being made up by economic growth, and even then ran record deficits.

I'm just not willing to help put another such idiot into the White House to stop wars that the current resident is winding down.

Get, remember, we're out of Iraq.

Just a side note on Reagan...

I think you're right to point out his deification, despite all evidence. I just caught the much-revered Grover Norquist's appearance on the Daily Show the other night. He kept insisting Reagan was the real deal - despite his many tax raises. He even used all the mental gymnastics people use when trying to justify the bad things their deities do!

In fact, I think there's a whole thread on that somewhere...

Anyway, not only did Reagan run record deficits, but he presided over the largest non-declared-war-time percentage increase in the debt. During his Presidency, the debt tripled.

And if he and Greenspan hadn't figured out how to play some reindeer games with the SS trust fund, it would have been bigger still!

To be fair, though, many of Reagan's tax increases only affected those in the bottom 90%! So at least he got that right!

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by jfstorm

I'm still amazed that you think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have any meaning with regards to the current political climate in the USA.

You are right and I concede your point. What I define as conservatism is different from what a lot of others define it as.

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

Frankly, I can't vote for Paul because his libertarianism seems to end with the Government interfering with a woman's economic relationship with her health care.

Also, liberal as I am, I'm not really in support of pulling America out of the world. So that's a false assumption.

But I will concede the point of your title. One of the trusism of liberalism is that WE vote against our narrow economic interests to make the lives of more people better, which often repays us (if not 100%) with a better economy overall.

Of course libertarians vote Republican against their economic interest and make the lives of RICH PEOPLE BETTER by making their own worse.

Bit of a difference there..

I think that's what I fight the most. During this birth control debate you never heard ron paul speak about taking rights away. In his books he says people should be able to pick their level of coverage not employers or government. Please explain how he believes in taking a womens economic health rights away.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by getatnard

You are right and I concede your point. What I define as conservatism is different from what a lot of others define it as.

This goes back to he idea of not using labels. Understanding that there may be different definitions of the labels, how do you discuss ideas without using labels. Like Kevin Williamson mentioned on 3/14/12, labels are shorthand. If you don't use labels do you have to use long descriptions each time a discussion occurs?

[getatnard]

Well maybe we form our ideas from our labels and that's why we can't have discussions without using them. We are trapped in this either or game. I think the point I was making is there are things people who voted for obama disagree with him about yet are willing to overlook because they will never pull a lever for the other side and vice versa.