Jerms:

1. I believe that a smaller federal government is
better for our country.
            This topic is always open for
discussion and should rightly be so.

 

2. I believe that the laissez faire approach to
economics is best for our country.
            The laissez faire approach is what led
to the meltdown.  The belief that the market
would police itself was naïve in the extreme.  It led to criminal behavior and should be actionable.  Unfortunately, the laissez faire approach to
economic well-being does not work in large societies – it leads to the law of
the jungle where only the strong survive (or is that what works for you?)

 

3. I believe that capitalism helped make this country
great and socialism in any subtle form will only make us mediocre, if not
worse.
            Socialist programs are what keep many
of our seniors able to lead graceful lives. They include Social Security (are
your parents on it? do they want to refuse it?)  and also  the graduated income
tax.  You have to live, uneducated, in a
hovel, eating rat droppings, before you will ever understand why some social
programs benefit the entire population.  And did you know that the really wealthy also collect social security
benefits?  I do not hear a lot about any
of them refusing to collect.

Before
Social Security old people had to survive on the economic assistance of their
children if they had any, and even today, single older women are the single
largest component of the poor in this country.

 P.S., if the Tea Party crowd is any barometer,
this country is already well on its way to mediocrity.

4. I believe that the Constitution was never written
to allow for the rewriting of basic cultural and social definitions.

            Actually it
was.  The absence of specifics was
deliberate to allow for just the sort of change that has taken place and allow
for an enlightened citizenry to amend no longer relevant parts of the Constitution.

            Capitalist countries that have a
socialist component benefit their citizenry far move productively than totally
capitalist or totally socialist societies.  An enlightened combination of these economic philosophies is what works.

            You say below that you have changed
your opinions many times, that it is not a sign of fickleness.  You extol the virtues of evolved thinking but
do not see that this same progression may apply to the Constitution.  The framers did not anticipate the
technological advances that have changed the dynamics of our social interaction.  The framers thought slavery would self-correct
so deliberately did not address it – they were wrong – it took a civil war.  The framers were okay with women not having equal
rights and not having the vote.  And
incidentally, since cultural tradition dies hard, women are still fighting for
equal pay for equal work.  Women also could
not own property, only share in the luxury of property through their husbands
or fathers (much like, incidentally the practice in some Muslim countries).

            And, finally, changes have been
introduced to protect segments of our society that were not being addressed by
law enforcement. An example is homosexuality.  Because religion and society disapprove of this activity, protection
must be given to this group.  This is not
rewriting morality, you are still free to disapprove, to consider it immoral,
you just can’t discriminate or deny human rights

5. I believe that in a country of so many
opportunities and freedoms, each person is responsible for his or her own
financial and physical well being.

            Please note this
excerpt from an essay on the Constitution:  “For Americans, equality is a word that has been expanded in its
definition since the founding of the country. For Jefferson and many of our
Founding Fathers, the phrase ‘...that all men are created equal...’ really
meant that "all free, property-owning males are created equal’".

            The phrase was not intended to mean
ever, that  an amputee  could compete equally in a foot race (if he
would only try hard enough).  The
definition of this equality lies in legal rights.  The poor and ethnic minorities are entitled
to justice as well as the rich and white.  We’re struggling with this one, because the rich can still buy their way
to freedom. 

            More specifically, when those with the
ability to lead functional lives do not help their less gifted, less able
through the vagaries of birth, fellow human beings with a hoist up the ladder
till they gain their footing, if they do not help the genuinely impoverished overcome
odds they did not invent but were saddled with through the misfortunes of physical
disadvantage and desperate early lives, they are avoiding moral responsibility.  It’s what you might call God’s work.  (Although I do believe if you have to believe
in a deity to behave morally, you are already in trouble.)

And
there will always be low-lifes who will take advantage of a generous system but
this should not mean that the deserving should be plowed under with the thieves
and culprits.  Yes it takes paying tireless
attention to discern who to help, how and when, and how to root out the
evil.  Well, it’s a lot of work isn’t
it?  It’s tiring and frustrating and
sometimes you don’t see results.  Do you
think it’s worth doing?  I do.

 

This is just the short list of the most important
concepts I hold near and dear, politically speaking. I think that I should not
be stretching the truth in saying that I am well-educated, articulate and
intelligent. In the light of the definition of the word bigotry, I am not a
bigot. Bigotry = stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or

 

 opinion that differs from one's own

 

I listen (and read) respectfully the thoughts and
opinions of others daily. They receive the same logical scrutiny that I apply
to the rest of my life. In the process, I've changed my opinion many times.
That, by the way, is not a sign of fickleness, but rather a sign of growth. I
have not become so openminded, however, that my brain falls out.

            I don’t believe you are a bigot but
I do not believe you apply your full intellectual powers to questioning beliefs
you have long been committed to.  I think
your brain automatically skips over these while you are on the hunt for another
answer.

            You are not in danger of losing your
brain, only in danger of its being mired in complacency because everything is
all right in your world and you think people who live hard lives aren’t trying.
 I think you begin with the premise that
people who need help are deadbeats, lazy good-for-nothings, who want to leach
off the hardworking rest of us.  Why, if
they only had the gumption, if they only had, actually, your childhood, your
encouragement, your support, the love of your elders, your education, and your
biology, they could live a fine life without help.  Drop this premise and you will find many doors
opening to a more compassionate view of the deprived.

 

There aren't really any "moral issues" in
what I've just listed. Although I DO have thoughts along those lines as well.
Frankly, neither party seems to represent, much less exemplify, my passionate
beliefs in that area.

            Every point you
have covered has a moral base.  It is the
classic distinction between the haves and the have-nots.

You say you constantly reexamine your thoughts.  Try harder.

Still, xx, Teal