hamburgers and politics

I've been especially enjoying reading some of my favorite blogs this week.
Ruthie (Zaftig) wrote a nice commentary on hip-hop culture. She was very clear to distinguish between the dangers of the culture of hip-hop versus the music itself. Personally, I don't hate hip-hop, but I can't say that I've got any on my ipod either. It was nice to hear about how meaningful some of the songs can be to some folks. And then J wrote a nice commentary on Christian Scientists. I didn't know much of the history of that religion.

I sure would like to put together a thoughtful, thought-provoking, intelligent post just now. It's morning and I'm refreshed from a hard, dreamless sleep, the rest of my family is still in bed and I've got my second (or third?) cup of coffee with me. It's slightly dreary and wet and cloudy outside and nice and comfortable in my house. I have my flannel Milk-Bone doggie pajamas on. Life is good, and conditions are ripe for writing. And I can't think of anything interesting to blog about.

There's the whole political thing, I guess, and how frustrating it is to me that it has turned into such a for/against, game. I'm frustrated at how the general population seems to view politics as inherently holding the requirement that you take sides and join up with a team. You're liberal, or you're conservative. You're Republican, or you're Democrat. You're for Ga Tech, or you're for the University of Georgia. You're a Blood or a Crip. You're "either with us or against us." (G.W. Bush). You're good or you're bad. You're black or you're white. We have devolved into a place that leaves no room for fuzzy borders or grays or any other color. We've turned our society into a giant football game. The thing that is destructive with that is that when you pick a side, your opinions have been made for you. You no longer need to take the trouble to think about issues and develop fresh new ideas about possible solutions. You just whip out your "liberal" or "conservative" pre-printed script when you're faced with a question, e.g., "I'm conservative and therefore am against abortion."

I went out for lunch yesterday with several friends from the PTA after a successful kindergarten registration at our school. We were sitting outside with iced teas and hamburgers and chatting about our children and the transition to middle school and all kinds of suburban soccer-mom sorts of topics. At one point, one of the moms diverged into politics and related to us her answer to her kids' question "What's a 'Liberal', mom?" In the midst of her explantion of how liberals liked to throw hard-working people's money at everyone else (gag), I raised my hand and smiled at her and said "You can tell them that a liberal looks like me." I leaned over to her and said "Before you go on, I don't want you to feel bad later, so I need to let you know that I'm very liberal." It all stayed light-hearted, but I'm glad I spoke up to remind her of that. Because you see, I've made this mistake before too. When I'm with people that I'm comfortable with - people that I respect and like - I tend to assume that we think alike more often than not. After all, with it being pounded into our heads how "we're" on the good side and "others" are on the bad side, it's hard to imagine that we might be fraternizing with the enemy when we're with someone we think of as one of the "good ones."

And now because I have exposed myself as a liberal (did anyone really not know that already?) and because I'm anxious to actually write a blog entry again, let's just take a quick look at that "liberals throw money at everyone" comment from lunch, AKA the "Tax and spend" label that is so often attached to liberals. Let's start with the problem which is, what do we, as a society, do with the poor and needy among us? I think only the most extreme among us would shrug and say "tough luck." I hope no one out there reading my blog has that opinion.

Conservatives and liberals both are concerned about these people and have different approaches to helping them. It's really not very complicated. More or less, the choices are to
1) tax those who are not poor and use that money to provide both direct basic needs and also the opportunity for the needy to move out of poverty and into a job by providing job training programs and educational grants (also funded through taxes) so that the poor can eventually move on to an independent existence, or
2) to encourage the wealthy to grow the general economy (via tax breaks for the wealthy) in order to create an environment with plenty of jobs for that poorest segment of society, therefore providing them with both the motivation and the means to provide their own basic needs.

Is that a fair analysis? I'm trying to be unbiased.

You can find errors in either approach. With 1), there will be those who take advantage of the direct aid (welfare) and refuse move on to the next step of the plan which is to obtain a job, resulting in the wealthy forever supporting the needy and the needy forever staying that way. What motivation is there to educate yourself and get a job when the government continues to provide you with food stamps and housing? With 2), there is the (very real, IMO) concern that these jobs that are supposed to be created for the needy among us aren't ever actually created - at least not jobs that don't require a significant level of education and training (which the poor among us cannot afford to obtain on their own). This results in the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting more poor. Dean Hartwell looks at the two approaches that politicians must balance in terms of error analysis in mathematics. He says

They could spend too little on government programs and deprive truly needy persons of help (Type 1). Or, they could spend too much on these programs and provide help to those who do not really need it (Type 2).

Conservatives are willing to take the chance that a "Type 1" error will occur. They justify this point of view by saying that there will always be poor among us.

Liberals will allow the possibility that a "Type 2" error will take place. They justify this attitude by opining that no one in need should be left behind, even if the price is allowing unworthy individuals to get free help from the government.

So in my judgement, I've found that I'm more willing to accept that fact that there's a lazy segment of the population that is going to take advantage of government hand-outs. I don't like it and it pisses me off. But I'm willing to live with that reality and that choice. I'm less willing to live with the idea that there are some people who are struggling and who have slipped through the cracks and find themselves unable to move out of poverty. It's not just the adults I'm worried about - it's their kids who are hungry today, who are not going to be able to afford college on their own, and who will be the "needy" in 20 years. So while I'm not all the way over on the left side of the spectrum, it's certainly tilted toward the side that's labeled "liberal."

My point, in relation to the topic I started out on, is that the labels we have gotten so used to sticking on the other side really shut off any meaningful discussion. When I immediately label my conservative friends as uncaring trickle-down rich folks, I'm not hearing their concerns (which are valid - see the type 2 error above). My friend's "tax and spend" lable for liberals like me means that she's discounted the fact that we actually do think about this stuff and want to find a good solution. We just have different comfort zones and "errors" that we're willing to allow to happen.

I really do hate that there is such a division out there. We're comfortable when we feel like we "belong" to a team, and even more comfortable when we think we belong to the right team. We can build ourselves up by pointing out how "the others" are so wrong. The problem with this is that we're so busy with feeling good about ourselves and feeling right and shouting about how the others are wrong that the problems that are out there become fodder for political posturing and become sound-bite words ("the needy"). The fact that there really are people out there (including children) who WILL go hungry today seems to have been lost.