October 2019
What I believe
20/10/19 15:42
I’ve seen a whole bunch of statements about what liberals/progressives believe, and it’s clearly written by someone who doesn’t know (or actively wants to misrepresent) what folks like me really think. So, if you want to know what I think about something, ask me!
Two starting premises:
My goals are not just personal, I’m thinking of the future. Wisdom is supposed to be about the short and long term. It’s supposed to be about me and mine, but also about the rest of the world. And I believe that. I care about the trajectory of our country and the world for all our kids and future generations! I don't want to be leaving my kids a worse world than I inherited. That’s just wrong. Robbing the future for a selfish today doesn’t represent my values.
And I’m for evidence-based approaches. Things that research tells us work. I’ve no time for positions that are based upon political stances or pipe dreams instead of a solid and scrutable basis. When the data’s not available (e.g. when it’s hidden or skewed) you then have to use causal reasoning. And that’s doable too. Running on mantras and misdirection to serve special interests is not.
Here is an overview of some traditional hot-buttons:
We need to invest in research. We can’t know what works without ongoing scientific investigation. Open research protects us from mistakes as well as providing for our future. Investments in research yield strong benefits. Gutting the engine of innovation is a key opportunity to lose our national competitive advantage.
Education is another investment that defines our future. It needs to be better (“only two things wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”), as we’re still running an industrial education system in an information era, but privatizing education has not yielded improved outcomes. It’s tough, but it’s the future of our kids. I’d like to see our next ‘man on the moon’ be a complete (and modern) K12 curricula online.
Environment is one of my primary concerns. We live on a finite planet. You don’t throw trash on the floor of your house; you shouldn’t pollute your only planet. The environmental outcomes of natural resource consumption are coming due. I find it confusing that people who love the benefits of science in their internet and health and more somehow can turn around and say “oh, but they’re wrong about climate change.” As an aside, there’re scientific benefits to wildness, and we need to stop developing what little remains.
Energy is a great opportunity instead of a barrier. Continuing to exploit natural resources is like “how can I be out of money, I still have checks?” It’s time for a national commitment to manufacture renewable resource energy solutions in areas that have lost industries. And then further investment to distribute them. My personal idea: build solar panels in places like West Virginia, and install them over every parking lot in the Sun Belt. Employment and energy self-sufficiency while providing a marketable product. (Research, ahem.)
Another area that’s important to me is healthcare. I’ve lived in a country with national healthcare. Guess what? It worked! Better than here in the US. I think it’s morally wrong to have people going bankrupt and/or dying because they can’t afford healthcare. No one – children, elderly, or anyone else – should lack for the support to pursue the life necessary to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. It mandated minimum levels of quality, and ensured everyone was covered so that there’d be the resources for later even if they are healthy now. It still doesn’t address the additional costs that accrue to the medical profession in managing payments to multiple providers, so there’s room to improve. It’s also a competitive advantage; when businesses don’t have to use overhead to administer health benefits, they can compete better.
So you can probably infer I’m for a baseline of government investment. I think there’re things that we have government for, and one of those is supporting the things that it’s too hard to do any other way. Roads and defense and research and education and healthcare are things that make sense. It’s about deciding what we want to have done that isn’t better done through a free market. Where a profit motive is at conflict with the outcomes (e.g. private health insurance loses if you actually need coverage, so…). And then we figure out how to pay for it. But not arbitrarily cut spending while at the same time ensuring that it’s being delivered efficiently.
Which brings up taxation. Look, let’s be clear, ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work. Demonstrably. And ‘tax and spend’ isn’t a bad mantra. It’s financially sound! Tax and not spend is mean, and spend and don’t tax is unsustainable. (No tax and no spend undermines the principles of supporting activity and the future.) And *of course* it doesn’t mean unlimited spending and unlimited taxing. Again, figuring out what we want and then taxing to pay for it. With no loopholes. Those who earn a lot still have incentives to earn, but they’re also paying back for the infrastructure that allowed them to be successful. I like the saying that “when you’ve more than others, don’t build a bigger wall, set a larger table.”
Now, there’s this silly notion that folks want to get without giving. That there’re folks who don’t want to work but expect to get cared for. I don’t know anyone like that, and I don’t know anyone who wants to enable that. But I do know that there are folks who want jobs, and can’t get them. Or can only get jobs that aren’t sufficient. When productivity has grown, but income hasn’t, someone’s getting rich but it isn’t the average worker. When companies tell employees to apply for family support, something’s wrong.
And we’re on to immigration. There are jobs that people struggle to take because they’re seasonal and don’t pay well. Yet, for some, these are a blessing. If you come from a country where it’s not safe to live and you can go to one where you’ll get better wages than you could otherwise, you’ll go. Illegal or not. Look, I’m not a fan of illegal immigration, I agree with the word ‘illegal’. But when their home country is outright dangerous, and there are people who will hire them, they’ll continue. You won’t stop it with deportation. If you don’t both help fix their home country and crack down on the employers, it’ll continue. And cracking down on the employers will cause economic chaos when those businesses that depend on this labor will go out of business. Maybe then we’ll come up with a guest worker plan that actually works!
And a big issue is discrimination. All these immigrants seem to threaten the notion of our existing white founders. First, how about the native Americans? And there’s already enough privilege. Scientifically, the races are the same other than some surface features, no different than black and gold Labrador retrievers! On principle, we shouldn’t discriminate against folks on anything they can’t control. Ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, these aren’t chosen! The only thing we should discriminate on is how people behave. Generosity, contribution, and adaptivity are far more important than the color of your skin. And there’s strength in diversity.
Speaking of ‘illegal’, if you ban abortions, you only ban legal abortions, risking people’s lives. I’m not pro-abortion; I would love to let embryos achieve their potential. But I also don’t want that child to be brought into a world where they’re unloved, abused, starved, and denied support to achieve that potential. When every child has a good home to go to, where we’re adopting all those whose mothers can’t provide, we should be able to remove abortion. But it’s not the decision of men, churches, or politicians. It’s a woman’s choice, period.
And on the topic of ‘murder’, how about guns? First, I don’t want your guns. But, please register them. And keep them safe. And let’s please check the background of anyone wanting to buy them. It amazes me how the 2nd Amendment supporters forget the part of the wording that specifies “a well-regulated militia”. Constitutional scholars (not those benefiting from the industry and inferiority complexes) are clear that what was meant was not unlimited weapon ownership. I don’t want to take away legitimate guns! If you’re a hunter, have a rifle and/or a shotgun. I’m questionable about handguns; as that notoriously liberal group (sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd said, “Handguns are made for killin', ain't no good for nothin' else.” But I’ll listen to a case being made. Assault weapons and massive cartridges? No! The only reason for that is killing people, and that’s not on. You can’t have a bazooka or a grenade, why should you have a weapon of mass shooting? Of course, why shouldn’t you listen to the gun manufacturers? Ahem. And don’t get me started on “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”; that myth’s been busted. We need more data, but that’s research that’s been stymied. (Research, ahem again.)
Being the arms merchant to the world isn’t our best foot forward. I’m for defense spending. Yet it was that infamous liberal (sarcasm again) Eisenhower who told us to fear the military industrial complex. We should be supporting freedom, but not imposing it, either. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Just as in business and interpersonal relations, good friendships should be built and maintained. Sure, we have to act against unfair policies, but building coalitions is better than going it alone. And, to be clear, when we deal with corrupt regimes that are enemies, their leaders should not be venerated!
Which brings us to the Mideast. I’m sorry, but when we’re cozying up to one regime, and attacking another, and their major split is religious, we’re opening the door to accusations of favoritism and guaranteeing an inability to quell disputes. Our policies towards Saudi’s Sunnis and Iran’s Shiites are different enough to engender anger. Similarly, while Israel has a right to exist, their violation of treaties to settle in areas like the West Bank should be condemned, not condoned. The Palestinians deserve a home, too. We’ll never be able to assist peace when we’re seen to be biased. Slap one on the wrist versus backhand the other across the face?
And, for the record, the Deep State is truly laughable. Look, when I hear the stories about how liberals have this plot to ruin America, I have to ask “what are you smoking?” Seriously, why would liberals want to ruin America? We live here! And the notion that there’s this pervasive conspiracy confounds common sense. No one yet has been able to perpetuate such a complicated endeavor without mistakes and leaks. It’s contrary to human nature. If it’s so big and powerful, how come Trump’s in the White House?
So: These are amongst the issues I want to evaluate a candidate for office on. There’s more (hey, I’m *deep* ;), but this is a start. And if you’re not on the side of the data, you’re on the wrong side. Let’s do what’s known to be right, not support vested interests misleading us. Learn the facts, and then, please, vote!
Two starting premises:
My goals are not just personal, I’m thinking of the future. Wisdom is supposed to be about the short and long term. It’s supposed to be about me and mine, but also about the rest of the world. And I believe that. I care about the trajectory of our country and the world for all our kids and future generations! I don't want to be leaving my kids a worse world than I inherited. That’s just wrong. Robbing the future for a selfish today doesn’t represent my values.
And I’m for evidence-based approaches. Things that research tells us work. I’ve no time for positions that are based upon political stances or pipe dreams instead of a solid and scrutable basis. When the data’s not available (e.g. when it’s hidden or skewed) you then have to use causal reasoning. And that’s doable too. Running on mantras and misdirection to serve special interests is not.
Here is an overview of some traditional hot-buttons:
We need to invest in research. We can’t know what works without ongoing scientific investigation. Open research protects us from mistakes as well as providing for our future. Investments in research yield strong benefits. Gutting the engine of innovation is a key opportunity to lose our national competitive advantage.
Education is another investment that defines our future. It needs to be better (“only two things wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”), as we’re still running an industrial education system in an information era, but privatizing education has not yielded improved outcomes. It’s tough, but it’s the future of our kids. I’d like to see our next ‘man on the moon’ be a complete (and modern) K12 curricula online.
Environment is one of my primary concerns. We live on a finite planet. You don’t throw trash on the floor of your house; you shouldn’t pollute your only planet. The environmental outcomes of natural resource consumption are coming due. I find it confusing that people who love the benefits of science in their internet and health and more somehow can turn around and say “oh, but they’re wrong about climate change.” As an aside, there’re scientific benefits to wildness, and we need to stop developing what little remains.
Energy is a great opportunity instead of a barrier. Continuing to exploit natural resources is like “how can I be out of money, I still have checks?” It’s time for a national commitment to manufacture renewable resource energy solutions in areas that have lost industries. And then further investment to distribute them. My personal idea: build solar panels in places like West Virginia, and install them over every parking lot in the Sun Belt. Employment and energy self-sufficiency while providing a marketable product. (Research, ahem.)
Another area that’s important to me is healthcare. I’ve lived in a country with national healthcare. Guess what? It worked! Better than here in the US. I think it’s morally wrong to have people going bankrupt and/or dying because they can’t afford healthcare. No one – children, elderly, or anyone else – should lack for the support to pursue the life necessary to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. It mandated minimum levels of quality, and ensured everyone was covered so that there’d be the resources for later even if they are healthy now. It still doesn’t address the additional costs that accrue to the medical profession in managing payments to multiple providers, so there’s room to improve. It’s also a competitive advantage; when businesses don’t have to use overhead to administer health benefits, they can compete better.
So you can probably infer I’m for a baseline of government investment. I think there’re things that we have government for, and one of those is supporting the things that it’s too hard to do any other way. Roads and defense and research and education and healthcare are things that make sense. It’s about deciding what we want to have done that isn’t better done through a free market. Where a profit motive is at conflict with the outcomes (e.g. private health insurance loses if you actually need coverage, so…). And then we figure out how to pay for it. But not arbitrarily cut spending while at the same time ensuring that it’s being delivered efficiently.
Which brings up taxation. Look, let’s be clear, ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work. Demonstrably. And ‘tax and spend’ isn’t a bad mantra. It’s financially sound! Tax and not spend is mean, and spend and don’t tax is unsustainable. (No tax and no spend undermines the principles of supporting activity and the future.) And *of course* it doesn’t mean unlimited spending and unlimited taxing. Again, figuring out what we want and then taxing to pay for it. With no loopholes. Those who earn a lot still have incentives to earn, but they’re also paying back for the infrastructure that allowed them to be successful. I like the saying that “when you’ve more than others, don’t build a bigger wall, set a larger table.”
Now, there’s this silly notion that folks want to get without giving. That there’re folks who don’t want to work but expect to get cared for. I don’t know anyone like that, and I don’t know anyone who wants to enable that. But I do know that there are folks who want jobs, and can’t get them. Or can only get jobs that aren’t sufficient. When productivity has grown, but income hasn’t, someone’s getting rich but it isn’t the average worker. When companies tell employees to apply for family support, something’s wrong.
And we’re on to immigration. There are jobs that people struggle to take because they’re seasonal and don’t pay well. Yet, for some, these are a blessing. If you come from a country where it’s not safe to live and you can go to one where you’ll get better wages than you could otherwise, you’ll go. Illegal or not. Look, I’m not a fan of illegal immigration, I agree with the word ‘illegal’. But when their home country is outright dangerous, and there are people who will hire them, they’ll continue. You won’t stop it with deportation. If you don’t both help fix their home country and crack down on the employers, it’ll continue. And cracking down on the employers will cause economic chaos when those businesses that depend on this labor will go out of business. Maybe then we’ll come up with a guest worker plan that actually works!
And a big issue is discrimination. All these immigrants seem to threaten the notion of our existing white founders. First, how about the native Americans? And there’s already enough privilege. Scientifically, the races are the same other than some surface features, no different than black and gold Labrador retrievers! On principle, we shouldn’t discriminate against folks on anything they can’t control. Ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, these aren’t chosen! The only thing we should discriminate on is how people behave. Generosity, contribution, and adaptivity are far more important than the color of your skin. And there’s strength in diversity.
Speaking of ‘illegal’, if you ban abortions, you only ban legal abortions, risking people’s lives. I’m not pro-abortion; I would love to let embryos achieve their potential. But I also don’t want that child to be brought into a world where they’re unloved, abused, starved, and denied support to achieve that potential. When every child has a good home to go to, where we’re adopting all those whose mothers can’t provide, we should be able to remove abortion. But it’s not the decision of men, churches, or politicians. It’s a woman’s choice, period.
And on the topic of ‘murder’, how about guns? First, I don’t want your guns. But, please register them. And keep them safe. And let’s please check the background of anyone wanting to buy them. It amazes me how the 2nd Amendment supporters forget the part of the wording that specifies “a well-regulated militia”. Constitutional scholars (not those benefiting from the industry and inferiority complexes) are clear that what was meant was not unlimited weapon ownership. I don’t want to take away legitimate guns! If you’re a hunter, have a rifle and/or a shotgun. I’m questionable about handguns; as that notoriously liberal group (sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd said, “Handguns are made for killin', ain't no good for nothin' else.” But I’ll listen to a case being made. Assault weapons and massive cartridges? No! The only reason for that is killing people, and that’s not on. You can’t have a bazooka or a grenade, why should you have a weapon of mass shooting? Of course, why shouldn’t you listen to the gun manufacturers? Ahem. And don’t get me started on “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”; that myth’s been busted. We need more data, but that’s research that’s been stymied. (Research, ahem again.)
Being the arms merchant to the world isn’t our best foot forward. I’m for defense spending. Yet it was that infamous liberal (sarcasm again) Eisenhower who told us to fear the military industrial complex. We should be supporting freedom, but not imposing it, either. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Just as in business and interpersonal relations, good friendships should be built and maintained. Sure, we have to act against unfair policies, but building coalitions is better than going it alone. And, to be clear, when we deal with corrupt regimes that are enemies, their leaders should not be venerated!
Which brings us to the Mideast. I’m sorry, but when we’re cozying up to one regime, and attacking another, and their major split is religious, we’re opening the door to accusations of favoritism and guaranteeing an inability to quell disputes. Our policies towards Saudi’s Sunnis and Iran’s Shiites are different enough to engender anger. Similarly, while Israel has a right to exist, their violation of treaties to settle in areas like the West Bank should be condemned, not condoned. The Palestinians deserve a home, too. We’ll never be able to assist peace when we’re seen to be biased. Slap one on the wrist versus backhand the other across the face?
And, for the record, the Deep State is truly laughable. Look, when I hear the stories about how liberals have this plot to ruin America, I have to ask “what are you smoking?” Seriously, why would liberals want to ruin America? We live here! And the notion that there’s this pervasive conspiracy confounds common sense. No one yet has been able to perpetuate such a complicated endeavor without mistakes and leaks. It’s contrary to human nature. If it’s so big and powerful, how come Trump’s in the White House?
So: These are amongst the issues I want to evaluate a candidate for office on. There’s more (hey, I’m *deep* ;), but this is a start. And if you’re not on the side of the data, you’re on the wrong side. Let’s do what’s known to be right, not support vested interests misleading us. Learn the facts, and then, please, vote!
