Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Sun Jun 29th 2008, 10:00 PM
The reason that I believe morality is impossible without empathy is that I cannot imagine what possible value any morality could have if it is not ultimately based on empathy.
I, like the good majority of humans, consider morality to be an extremely important character trait. I have given it much thought and read much about it throughout my life. Yet, until a few months ago, at the age of 57, I doubt that I had much of an idea where it comes from.

Then I came across a brief mention of the subject by George Lakoff, in his book “Whose Freedom – The Battle over America’s Most Important Ideal”. Just the mere mention of it created in me one of those rare moments in my life when a flash went off in my brain and a previously mysterious and confusing subject suddenly became almost crystal clear. Lakoff’s pertinent quote was “Progressive morality is centrally about empathy”.

As I thought about that I came to realize that, not just progressive morality, but all morality – that is, all morality that is worthy of being called morality – is centrally about empathy. Or, another way of putting it is that empathy is the source of all morality and that there could be no morality without empathy. At least, that’s the way I see it.

Empathy is the quality whereby we imagine ourselves in another’s shoes – what it is like to be that person (or animal) and experience what that person is experiencing. And it’s more than just imagining it, it’s actually feeling it – which is where the expression “I feel your pain” comes from. The reason that I believe morality is impossible without empathy is that I cannot imagine what possible value any morality could have if it is not ultimately based on empathy (though I’m open to reconsider that if someone would give me a single example to prove that opinion wrong).

To solidify the point, let’s consider some other things that have often been mentioned as, and which many people consider to be the source of morality:


Other things that are believed by many to be the source of morality

I can only think of four basic categories:

God
There are of course millions, or maybe even billions of people, of many different religions, who believe God (singular or plural) to be the source of morality.

I am not an irreligious person. I have at times believed in God (kind of) and even kind of still do, in some ways – at least partially. Several years ago, when I belonged to the Unitarian/Universalist church (which is to religion what the DU is to U.S. politics), I wrote an essay as part of a course called “Create your own God” (or something like that), in which I tried to explain how a moral God could allow such terrible things to happen in our world. But I digress.

Anyhow, the point I wanted to make is that my belief in God has not (in any way that I can think of) determined how I act, because as far as I’m concerned S/he hasn’t written down any rules for me to follow. As far as I’m concerned, God expects us to use the brains and hearts that S/he gave us to figure out for ourselves what is moral and what is not. The reason I believe that is that if S/he expected us to merely follow a set of rules written down in His/Her Bible, then we would be more like sheep or robots than humans.

As far as the Jewish and Christian (and all other) Bibles are concerned… Well, first of all, it seems that they’re interpreted in a gazillion different ways, often according to the ideology of the interpreter. And secondly, I’ve never seen any proof that God wrote any of them.

But seriously, I don’t mean to offend anyone by saying all that. I have heard many times from very intelligent people, including those who aren’t religious, that both the Old and the New Testament are filled with great literature and great ideas. I’ve heard that so many times that I believe it’s true. Seriously. But try as I might, I’ve tried to read them, or about them, several times, and I just don’t get it. So my opinion of those books really doesn’t count. But still, I can’t imagine that God wants us to follow a bunch of rules as if we were robots or sheep.

Society, parents, etc
Others say that we learn morality from our parents or from others in our wider society, such as teachers, various other authority figures, or even friends and acquaintances.

Actually, that’s what my dad, who was a psychologist when he was alive, used to tell me, always emphasizing the role of parents. It upset me a good deal when he said that, and we used to argue a lot about it.

I’m sure that we get a lot of ideas about morality from our parents and a lot of other people. But we don’t automatically accept those ideas. Or rather, if we do automatically accept them, without thinking much about them, just because we were told to accept them by an authority figure, then we’re acting more like a sheep or a robot than like a human. And since I don’t believe that sheep or robots have a sense of morality, I don’t believe that ideas acquired in that way really constitute morality. It’s simply a matter of acquiring a set of rules that we follow because we believe that we’re supposed to follow them.

Of course it is possible, and even undoubtedly extremely common, that after being given those ideas by our parents or others, after a period of time thinking about them, we eventually come to internalize them and actually adopt them as part of our moral code. In those cases it could be said that in some sense our understanding of morality comes from our parents (or whoever we get the ideas from).

But my point is that if we accept those ideas as part of our moral code, and if we accept them because we truly feel them as important moral principles, rather than simply because someone told us that we should, then we have internalized them as a human rather than as a robot. And when we do that, empathy is the ultimate quality that allows us to do it.

Evolution
Some have suggested evolution as the source of morality. In other words, those advocates say that morality is a major force that has facilitated the survival of our species, and therefore, a moral action is any action that facilitates the survival of our species. I see some problems with that view, aside from the fact that many of our actions that facilitate survival of our species are performed unconsciously.

When we talk about “survival of our species”, what species exactly are we talking about? Our species has never been static, but rather it has continually evolved over a long time, so that “we” are a different species today than we were a long time ago.

A multitude of factors have contributed to the specific way in which we have evolved. To take one extreme example, genocide has on many occasions influenced the genetic composition of mankind and therefore our evolution. In other words, it has contributed to the specific genetic makeup that mankind has today, and therefore to the way in which we have evolved. Yet genocide is immoral rather than moral

Enough said about that idea.

“Because I say so”
This is the least persuasive reason of all as an argument for why something is immoral, and yet it may be one of the most commonly used. I don’t mean to say that people actually say “because I say so” as an argument. But when a person argues the point that such and such is immoral, with no argument other than the repeated assertion that “such and such is ALWAYS immoral”, then essentially their argument is “because I say so”. I find that type of argument everywhere, even, sadly to say, on DU.

I have two problems with that line of argument. One is that I believe that there is hardly anything that is ALWAYS immoral, regardless of the circumstance. I believe that there are very few things that are that absolute. But more important, when a person uses that line of argument, it cuts off all discussion.


Some examples

In order to explain why I see morality as based on empathy, and how that plays out with respect to various moral issues, I’ll give a few examples, starting with the most obvious and basic and then going on to some very controversial topics:

Murder for profit
Consider the simple act of killing someone for no other reason than to gain possession of what he has – like, for example, George Bush and Dick Cheney starting the Iraq War…. No, sorry, that’s a bad example because their motives are controversial in some quarters, and I said that I’d start with something non-controversial. Ok then, consider a man murdering an old and defenseless woman just to get her purse. I think we can all agree that that would be highly immoral.

How do I know that? I know it simply because I’m able to imagine myself as the victim of that crime and feel what it would be like for her. To the extent that I’m able to do that I can have empathy for the victim and therefore recognize the crime as immoral.

But what about someone who has no empathy – such as, perhaps, the perpetrator of the crime I just described? Would that crime be immoral for that person? Well, the crime would still be immoral, but the perpetrator wouldn’t be able to recognize it as such. How could he? I’m not saying that his lack of empathy and inability to (internally) recognize the crime as immoral in any way excuses it, in my opinion. But still, I don’t see how a person without any empathy could recognize anything as being immoral.

Adultery
Just as with murder, adultery is one of the Ten Commandments that God supposedly wants us to refrain from. But I see adultery as being much more complicated, with the morality of it depending entirely on the specific circumstances.

At one extreme, consider a man and woman who get married with the express understanding that adultery is not off-limits within the bounds of their marriage. One or both of the spouses commits adultery, and neither one feels hurt about it. Furthermore, there is no dishonesty involved in getting the third party to participate in the adultery, and the third party isn’t hurt either. The way I see it is, no victim, no immorality.

At the other extreme, the couple had a definite understanding when they married that adultery is not consistent with their marriage vows. One partner commits adultery for no good reason other than that he wants to, and the result is that his spouse goes into a depression and commits suicide. And, the adulterer had a very good idea of the pain he would cause when he did it. In my opinion it is the callousness of the act, which in turn derives largely from a lack of empathy, which accounts of the immorality of the act.

Of course, most cases of adultery fall somewhere in between those two extremes. My point is that the extent to which it is immoral depends fully on the circumstances of the specific situation, and not merely on the fact that adultery has technically been committed.

Abortion
As we all know, abortion is a very controversial topic, the perceived morality of which differs greatly, as a general rule, between liberals and conservatives.

My personal view is very similar to the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, which says that a woman has the right to an abortion under almost all circumstances.

My main reason for seeing it that way is that I empathize with women who don’t want to carry their fetus to full term, either because they don’t feel equipped to take care of a child or because they don’t want to go through the pain of child birth, or even because they would be terribly embarrassed to have their parents or other people find out that they’re pregnant. And I have even more empathy for women who, for any of the above reasons, would choose to obtain a dangerous and illegal abortion if it wasn’t legal.

On the other hand, I have little or no empathy for the aborted fetus. I’m not proud of that. It’s just a fact. I could spend some time trying to defend why I have little or no empathy for the aborted fetus, but I won’t, since it’s not highly relevant to this post.

I recognize, of course, that there are many millions of people in this country who believe that abortion should be illegal, that women should go to prison for having one, and/or that doctors should go to prison for performing them. I’m not sure why so many people feel that way. For those who feel that way simply because they believe that God says abortion is immoral, I don’t have much sympathy. For those who feel that way simply because they want vengeance against women who get abortions, I have even less sympathy.

But what about those who believe abortion should be illegal because of empathy they feel for the aborted fetus? I’ve been flamed on DU for saying this, but though I don’t agree with the conclusions of the “pro-life” people (that abortion should be illegal), if they believe abortion should be illegal because of empathy they have for the fetus, then I respect their beliefs on this issue. I believe that there are such people – and I’ve gotten flamed on DU for saying that too. What percent of “pro-lifers” fall into that category? I wouldn’t even want to hazard a guess. For all I know, I may be wrong, and there are no “pro-lifers” who actually feel empathy for the fetus, because it’s not humanly possible (other than for the mother, father, or other close relative) to do so.

Torture
The reason why empathy would lead many of us to believe torture to be immoral should be obvious, so I won’t belabor the point.

Of all the many crimes of the Bush administration, this may be the one that bothers me the most. I’ve posted more than 20 long OPs on this subject on DU over the past three years or so, and you can find most of them in my journal. I’ve also discussed the issue in many other posts where it wasn’t the main topic, such as when I castigated Tim Russert (See the section called “Mischaracterizing the torture issue) for slyly advocating torture (under some circumstances) at a Democratic primary debate, and at the same time putting the Democratic candidates in a very difficult and unfair situation. I’ve never been so proud of Hillary Clinton as when she told Russert where he could go with his torture mongering, after being repeatedly badgered by him on the subject:

You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period… But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.

Whereas the reason why empathy leads many of us to believe torture to be immoral is obvious, it should also be obvious why some Americans believe that torture should be legal and not considered immoral under some circumstances. Fear of course is one reason.

Another reason is that many Americans mistakenly believe that torture is often useful in preventing the perpetration of terror and death on American civilians. An abundance of evidence shows that when torture is legal (or even when it’s not, but when a nation’s leader doesn’t consider himself subject to his nation’s laws), far more innocent (and guilty) people get tortured than anything good that comes from it (I discuss that in this post, among others).

Nevertheless, I believe that many (perhaps millions) Americans are largely or totally ignorant of the fact that torture is almost always useless. For those people, their empathy for the people whose lives and health they believe are being saved through torture may outweigh their empathy for those who are tortured, and that probably accounts for why many of them believe torture not to be immoral. Whereas I strongly disagree with their conclusion (that torture should be legal and is usually not immoral as practiced in this country), at least I can understand the logic of their thinking and don’t disagree with that logic. It is just that they are terribly misinformed (Of course, I also recognize that a certain unknown number of Americans don’t consider George Bush’s torture program to be immoral mainly because they have little or no empathy for those who are tortured).


Understanding consequences

In writing this post I do not mean to give the impression that empathy is the only characteristic that is involved in moral issues. Morality is a complex issue, and there are probably characteristics other than empathy that are involved in it – though I can’t quite put my finger on what they are.

One thing that is certain though, is that an understanding of the consequences of actions is essential in determining their morality. Several of the examples that I gave above make that point.

For example, I’m sure that many who believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal never stopped to consider or are almost totally ignorant of the many terrible deaths that so many women suffered prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, as a result of the fact that they couldn’t get a legal abortion. Similarly, many millions of Americans are ignorant of the real motives for the Iraq War or of the suffering and deaths incurred by millions of innocent Iraqis as the result of that war. That being the case, it is no wonder that there is not more outrage than there is in this country over the immorality of that war.


Conservative “morality”

I hope it’s clear from what I’ve written here that I generally have a fair amount of tolerance for other peoples’ views. However, when it comes to certain ideas that the conservative right espouses about morality – which itself indicates a profound lack of tolerance – my tolerance level is not very high. I’ll end this post with some eloquent examples cited by Lakoff in his book, of conservative “morality”, which in my opinion is not really morality at all:

With regard to the conservative “Culture of life”:

So-called pro-life conservatives are typically in favor of the death penalty… They favor conservative policies that result in America having the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world… These deaths are a result of conservative policies against prenatal and postnatal care, universal child health insurance…, Medicaid…

If they were really pro-life… they would support programs for pre- and postnatal care, health care for all children, programs to feed and house the hungry and homeless, antipollution programs, and safe food programs. Instead, they let strict father morality dominate over issues of life – that the poor are responsible for their own poverty and that they and their innocent children should suffer for it, and that government should not interfere with corporate profits through public health regulations for clean air and water.

And with regard to the conservative idea of “freedom”:

The focus of (George Bush’s) presidency is defending and spreading freedom. Yet, progressives see in Bush’s policies not freedom but outrages against freedom. They are indeed outrages against the traditional American ideal of freedom… It is not the American ideal of freedom to invade countries that don’t threaten us, to torture people and defend the practice, to jail people indefinitely without due process, and to spy on our own citizens without warrant…

It applies to just about every issue. Take the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which had the effect of keeping poor people (though not wealthy corporations) from declaring bankruptcy in the face of overwhelming debt – in most cases debt from emergency medical care. This will keep tens of thousands of families enslaved to debt, often at the cost of their homes! It was sponsored and passed by conservatives. It was an anti-freedom bill…

Freedom and liberty are progressive ideas that are precious to Americans. When the right wing uses them, it sounds as if aliens had inhabited, and were trying to take possession of, the soul of America. It is time for an exorcism.

Discuss (103 comments) | Recommend (55 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8793 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.