One doesn't have to look far to find academics with a distorted view of America and its people. A local example: Prof. Leo R. Sandy a professor of Counselor Education and School Psychology at Plymouth State University.
The professor spouts the liberal/socialist line at every opportunity, in a weekly newspaper column and regular letters to the local papers. One of his latest pronouncements came in a letter to the editor (Laconia Daily Sun, Tuesday February 2, 2010), commenting upon Republican reactions to Obama's State of the Union address. (No direct link available.)
Professor Sandy has never been shy about his political beliefs, espousing the leftist point of view for some time. Never mind that socialism in all its forms has failed miserably and done nothing but cause misery, poverty, and widespread diminishment or destruction of economic systems, supposedly 'for the good of the people'. He chooses to be blind to the downside of his political beliefs.
But then, he doesn't have to compete in the real world, worrying about meeting a payroll, filling out endless state and federal government reporting forms, ensuring compliance with US and foreign regulations, paying state and federal business taxes, and paying insurance premiums for a host of business policies (workman's comp, health insurance, liability insurance, etc). He doesn't have to worry about being laid off (if he has tenure), or paying for his health insurance (he's a state employee), so he's insulated from the effects of all the socialist policies and laws he supports. Then again, that's true of most academics in the soft sciences and liberal arts. They rarely have to deal with the real world. That's their biggest problem. With little or no connection to the real world, it is easy for them to support socialist ideals and policies abhorrent to average Americans.
UPDATE: Bird Dog asks the question "Why are Liberals so condescending?"
The professor spouts the liberal/socialist line at every opportunity, in a weekly newspaper column and regular letters to the local papers. One of his latest pronouncements came in a letter to the editor (Laconia Daily Sun, Tuesday February 2, 2010), commenting upon Republican reactions to Obama's State of the Union address. (No direct link available.)
The Republicans had an oppositional air to them that causes me to question their commitment to the progress of this country. As regressives, they have been very effective in moving the Democrats so far to the right that nothing can be accomplished.Excuse me? They've been moving the Democrats to the right? Not from what I and most of the rest of America have seen. With cap-and-trade, health care reform, stimulus, and a $1.6 trillion+ (and growing) budget deficit, I don't see how any of that can be considered moving the leftist Dems to the right.
Professor Sandy has never been shy about his political beliefs, espousing the leftist point of view for some time. Never mind that socialism in all its forms has failed miserably and done nothing but cause misery, poverty, and widespread diminishment or destruction of economic systems, supposedly 'for the good of the people'. He chooses to be blind to the downside of his political beliefs.
But then, he doesn't have to compete in the real world, worrying about meeting a payroll, filling out endless state and federal government reporting forms, ensuring compliance with US and foreign regulations, paying state and federal business taxes, and paying insurance premiums for a host of business policies (workman's comp, health insurance, liability insurance, etc). He doesn't have to worry about being laid off (if he has tenure), or paying for his health insurance (he's a state employee), so he's insulated from the effects of all the socialist policies and laws he supports. Then again, that's true of most academics in the soft sciences and liberal arts. They rarely have to deal with the real world. That's their biggest problem. With little or no connection to the real world, it is easy for them to support socialist ideals and policies abhorrent to average Americans.
UPDATE: Bird Dog asks the question "Why are Liberals so condescending?"
Australia has already killed off their version of Cap and Trade and will not be resubmitting any such legislation any time soon, particularly in light of ClimateGate.
While it's true that not all Canadians are going to the US for treatment, more than enough are, even those that cannot easily afford the care here. Those that choose not to come to the US tend to go to the new private clinics in Canada, paying out of pocket for treatment. The private clinics have survived attempts by the government to shut them down, particularly since the Canadian Supreme Court decided that access to a waiting list is not access to health care. Of the many Canadians I know (some of them family), very few of them like their health care system.
In regards to corporate taxes, one must be careful when stating te US has the 4t lowest. One must remember that many of them now have corporate 'headquarters' outside the US in places like Hamilton, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which allows them to get around corporate profits taxes. The loopholes should be closed and the tax rates lowered so that the US can gain revenue now being lost because of the twisted tax laws here.
DCE -
On cap and trade: I cannot say that I agree that the EU ETS was a dismal failure, and I am hopeful that now that it has tightened the cap end of the deal it will be more effective. I think you'll find that Australia is planning to introduce it's own cap and trade program by 2012. Again, I am not a huge fan of cap and trade because a) I don't trust the companies and b) I don't like anything that ends up costing low/middle income families extra.
As for alternative power, there are plenty of green energy options that can provide base load (bioenergy, solar with storage, geothermal, well distributed wind) and I am not sure which of these you consider unreliable and expensive. Sure an entirely new infrastructure is needed, but that is fantastic as it will create much needed jobs.
On universal healthcare - the availability of certain procedures is not in question here, but rather the ability to pay for health care. I think you'll find that very few Canadians choose to go to the US for their care. To say that universal healthcare does not work, plain and simple, is just not true. Having lived in two countries with government run healthcare, I assure you, there is nothing to be afraid of.
And finally, while the US does have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, due to creative accounting and other shenanigans what it collects is actually the 4th lowest in the world.
Paulina,
Cap and Trade was a farce from the word go. All it would do is tax the heck out of everyone using energy, but give nothing in return except a crippled economy. Cap and trade has been tried in Europe and it was a dismal failure. Australia managed to avoid the pitfall of cap and trade because they knew it was a lie. Trying to run our entire society on renewable energy sounds like a laudable goal, but it isn't realistic, at least from an engineering point of view. Alternative energy cannot be counted on to furnish base load...unless you're willing to put up with unreliable and expensive power system. Our economy cannot expand or compete under those conditions. So unless you are willing to drastically lower your standard of living and live far more precariously, the course of action you propose will do far more harm than good (the whole Law of Unintended Consequences thing).
In regards to pollution reduction, where have you been the past 50 years or so? I remember all too well what the air and water was like all across this country. Rivers and lakes were polluted to the point where the water was undrinkable and a hazard to one's health. (The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland actually caught fire, it was so polluted.) The air was heavy with smog in most cities, with a brownish cast that made one cringe every time anyone took a breath. Cars and trucks belched unburned hydrocarbons that stank to high heaven.
Unless you've sequestered yourself away and ignored the progress made since the 60's and 70's, those conditions no longer exist except in a few locations here and there.
Health care: Here I must vehemently disagree with you. 'Universal' health care just plain doesn't work. There are too many and widespread examples of this failed system and why we shouldn't go there. (One Canadian premier - the equivalent of a state governor - had such little confidence in the Canadian health care system, a universal care system, that he came to the US for his heart surgery. That doesn't fill me with confidence.) To say that we won't make the same mistakes that have been made in Canada, the UK, France, and a lengthy list of other countries with universal health care is naive at best and insane at worst. (Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting the results to be different this time.)
On the stimulus, I can agree with you. Jon Stewart had commented to Harvard economist Greg Mankiw on the Daily Show that he thought it would be better to give $25,000 to each family and let them pay off debt, with the benefit that the banks would still get their money but after it had done some actual stimulation of the economy. Mankiw, a conservative, agreed with him wholeheartedly, which of course surprised Stewart entirely.
The budget;you'll get no argument from me on that. However when it comes to taxation we must be careful not to make the mistake a number of other countries have made and raise the taxes so high the wealthy leave, taking their wealth with them and seriously hurting the economy. (Someone had made the suggestion that perhaps we should tax the wealthy at 100% - perhaps tongue in cheek - but after calculating how much money would be collected they realized the government would collect only $400 billion, which would fall short of canceling out the deficit by $1.2 trillion. And the government would collect $0 from the wealthy next year because they would leave and take what was left of their money with them. Remember, socialism works fine...until you run out of other people's money. Government can rarely do anything better than private businesses or individuals. There are plenty of examples in history to show the folly of socialism. It's why Russia and China have shed themselves of socialism and embraced capitalism. (Russia has other problems that has affected their economy.)
When it comes to exports, the company I work for makes about half of its income from exports. So do a lot of other companies I know. This country's problem is some government policies and high corporate taxes (we have the second highest corporate taxes in the world) that make it difficult for companies in the US to compete overseas. (Trade protectionism doesn't work as it usually has just the opposite effect.)
Here is how I (a very much leftist person) see the movement of Dems to the right using your examples:
1) cap and trade - does not do nearly enough to control pollution and the use of fossil fuels in this country. As a leftist person I would much rather see some policies that would make the use of coal and oil completely unprofitable and move this country entirely onto solar and wind (and maybe a few other) fuel sources.
2) health care reform - us leftists want universal health care or at least a "robust public option" and not this wishy washy nonsense that is coming out of congress, including shit like the Stupak amendment.
3) stimulus - I would have liked to say 'fuck the banks' and see the money go to middle class and low income families in America, small businesses and what is now-a-days referred to as "main street and not wall street".
4) budget deficit - I hate to see it growing just as much as you. Obviously we need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations(didn't I mention I am leftist?) and we will still be screwed. It would be nice to see some kind of actual industry in the US with some actual exports.
As a social worker, I run across clowns like this in the counseling biz all the time. Liberalism is essentially a social, not intellectual pursuit, and group norms are enforced with sneers and tones of voice. It was this tendency, persisting even after having been brought up for discussion in group supervision, department meetings, and at conferences, that moved me out of the liberal sphere.
I find that "postliberal" sums it up pretty well.
Goffstown, NH
Yeah, he's a trip. He's like our president: platitudinous and self-serving.
I meant to respond to a churlish letter to the editor he gave in the Laconia Sun making love to the fact we only spend a tiny percentage of our budget to foreign aid. Right-wingers like to complain about that, and he was so self-satisfied setting the record straight.
Yet, that figure doesn't include all it should. For example, our troops around the world. That's part of our aid to other countries, is it not? Or the construction of buildings for the State Department, such as our gargambassy in Baghdad, Iraq, which is supposed to be larger than the entire Vatican State. How are those apples?
Reminds me when people used to poo-poo conservatives who complained about the expense of welfare. They retorted, using just the moneys spend on Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But that was misleading. As Martin Gross has stated, there were over 700 programs for the needy. Each poor family could have received $65,000. Most of it went to the bureaucrats.