To my conservative friends

[substitute]

I listen to the local grandees slapping their knees and chortling as they talk about shooting a few liberals so we get the point. I look at the paper and I see an editorial saying that people with my opinions aren’t American and should leave the country. I look at the TV and I’m being called a traitor, a liar, a sympathizer with our enemies. I see nice clean smart educated middle-class people in sweaters agreeing with each other that homosexuals and liberals and non-christians should be excluded from our schools and government jobs because “they just don’t share our values”.

I see this more and more, and a hundredfold again more since this election.

And then I look at my conservative friends, who vote and donate and support these people. I think about people who are very nice to my face and share food with me and appear to enjoy my company, and call themselves my friends. And then I look at their friends. And I think: “What do they say when I’m not around?”

Do they stand up for me and mine at all? Does anyone ever say “No, those people are Americans, too; their viewpoint is legitimate”. Or “Don’t be silly, this country has room for more opinions than one.” Or even just “live and let live”?

I was raised to build bridges to others; to find points of agreement; to share values when I couldn’t share politics; and to agree to disagree. I can’t do that any more, because they’re making total war on me. When I do it with you now, I feel like an idiot, because no one on your side plays that game now.

My father and his father and his father before him back to the founding of this country have fought in all our wars. I am an American or I am nothing. The liberal values we have are Kennedy’s, and FDR’s, and Jefferson’s. But your friends say that’s all a lie, or at least it’s all over with, and it’s time for me to leave and let them have their way.

Is that how you see me, too? Is that what you want, too? Because if that’s the case, please tell me. Then I’ll know who isn’t my friend, and never was. I’d never thought I’d say this, but I don’t feel safe around you any more.

Comments

Re: Your answer...I hope: Part Two of Two

[pbd.livejournal.com]

Jobs and the economy: Kerry wanted to increase the taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year. Well, this would include pretty much most small business owners that operate as an S-Corp or sole proprietorship. Currently, my nice paying job is not with some big company, it is with a small consulting company. My spouse’s nice paying job is with a small real estate developer. I believe for most younger people, smaller companies allow us to get “in the door” on certain career paths. Small businesses need to be protected.

Healthcare. Both sides did not have an answer that I liked. But Kerry’s answer, I disliked even more. There is a dynamic that he has forgotten. In a growing economy, it is increasingly difficult to find qualified people. Health benefits are a benefit that employers use to attract people to work for them. Potential employees ask about the health plan. If Kerry got his health plan passed, my really good health plan now would go away because my employer would opt into the cheaper watered-down health plan that everyone gets. How do I know that it is going to be worse. I relate this to catering. When you cook eggs for 2-10 people, it is pretty good and consistent. When you cook eggs for 2000-10000 people, it taste and looks like crap. The only way it can be good is if you pay A LOT, like 3-4 times as much. In England, heath care is pretty good and is accessible for all citizens. Taxes are pretty high as well.

International Politics: France and Russia on this planet like every other state for their own self-interest. They do not care about the UN either. Please Kerry, do not defend the UN.

Religion and values: A lot of new votes came to vote based upon this issue. One statistic I heard was that it was around 20%. And 80%+ of that 20% voted for Bush. This is tied to two issues: gay marriage and abortion.

See, the problem that I have with gay marriage is that it is called “marriage”. If it was called a “civil union” and was afforded the same legal rights with regards to taxes or whatever, I would vote for it tomorrow. But is not, so I am not going to vote yes for it. Why, well here is my example and where I will get the most flack: Two married couples go into an adoption agency and have identical backgrounds, income, personalities, etc. except one couple is straight and one couple is gay, I want the preference of the adoption agency to be toward the straight couple and not the gay couple. I believe that there is a healthier family when a child is raised by a man and woman verses 2 men or 2 women. That ‘s it. If both couples are defined as a marriage, the can be no preference.

In regards to abortion, I do not want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. I do no think most Americans want it to be overturned either. However, I do wish that America valued that all attempts to protect a life should be made. Instead, it is viewed that opting for abortion is an equivalent option to carrying a child to term and then giving the child away for adoption.

So, to answer your question, I still defend your position. I do not hate you or liberals. Both sides need to be heard and options considered. I wish we had another FDR as well. If we could find a way to put young people to work that did not make correct decisions with regards to their career path and give them a second chance, I am all for it. If we could develop in a way that Americans can increase their skills and become more competitive in the world market place, I am all for it.

There are a lot of ideals that liberals have that most of America should agree with. Protecting the poor, workers rights (unions, associations, etc.), minority rights, social welfare, and domestic trade policy.

I think that in this election however, both sides lost.

Re: Your answer...I hope: Part Two of Two

[substitute.livejournal.com]

Reading your response makes me wish the debate was still like this. You and I disagree on a lot, but it's disagreement and not war.

I think I'll avoid responding to your points because that's not the purpose here. If all I had to do was argue my case with others who had different philosophies I'd be upset when I lost but not this upset.

My question to my conservative friends was: will you say anything, do you say anything, when your friends want me exiled and disenfranchised and dead? Will you stay with your party if they keep eroding the Bill of Rights? Is there a point at which Christian conservatives could say "stop here, we don't need a theocracy"? I haven't seen an answer to that yet.

What I see is this kind of talk going unchallenged by anyone in the conservative camp. It gives me the same feeling that Louis Farrakhan or David Duke or Le Pen do; a cold breath of fear that we're losing our moderate core in this country and sliding into demagoguery and neofascist hate. The only people who can reverse that are principled conservatives who are willing to take a stand on Americanism for all of us.

Re: Your answer...I hope: Part Two of Two

[pbd.livejournal.com]

It is always dangerous when the core of the party is so obviously expressed through their candidate. This is case on both sides. Kerry tried to be moderate, but his record is anything but. He is not a second Bill Clinton by any stretch of the imagination. This election was vital to either core due to the number of Supreme Court nominations that might come up. The difference in this election is that the core for the Republicans were much more motivated and organized. They got their message out there more effectively than the left because the message was simple and would impact voters on an emotional level. They did not bark about fiscal policy, international politics, social welfare, health care, etc., they focused on values: family values, effects on children, effects on the direction of the country. This is what turned the tide on the election.

Hence this impact. So, those that do not hold to the same values are the enemy. Do I hold to the notion that the liberals are now subdued and will submit to this new agenda. Absolutely not. I do beleive though that this does give them the opportunity to reevalute their goals and refocus on what their core should be and what it should fight for.

What I hope happens is that the left reinvents themselves and finds innovative ways to help solve the major problems that this country is currently dealing with and will face in the future. I think that they can. All they have to do is look at the influencial presidents of the past and what they did. Here are a couple of examples:

If they can find ways to move companies away from cheap inefficient overseas labor to retraining Americans to be a small, more efficient employable group, this will be winner on both sides of the isle.

If they can find ways to tell the Middle East to kiss off and use natural gas or electric cars instead of gas-guzzling V8's, then we can lower the cost of goods and services by moderating fuel costs as well as reducing our portion of the world pollution to make the UN happy.

In the 1930's, we provided power to most of the rural South by building dams and power plants through employing out of work Americans. There is not reason why today, we cannot do the same thing with renuable energy.

Re: Your answer...I hope: Part Two of Two

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I follow this. S-corps and sole proprietorships don't pay dividends (where a substantial portion--but not all--of Bush's tax savings for those over $200,000 came from), and that somehow relates to whether or not a small employer would be able to offer a job or not. And offering health benefits to more Americans would suddenly cause him/her to choose an option that already exists (cheaper insurance) just because a new option is federally-serviced--clearly an option against Republican views on the function of government (and remember, in a group plan, the owner of the business has to go along with it for their insurance too). And because there's no scientific facts to prove that a child raised in a stable home with same-sex partners rather than a home broken by rampant divorce rates and de-sanctified by Britney Spears-like stunts is any worse off, the latter is somehow better than the former. I just don't see it.

I also don't see how those choices do anything to defend the rights this administration has already declared they want to take away from you, me and others.

It's possible I read the screen wrong, but thank you for sharing how you saw the election--it was a fresh perspective on conservative views on these issues.

-W :)

Re: Your answer...I hope: Part Two of Two

[pbd.livejournal.com]

Ah, but Kerry was not talking about dividends. He was talking about raising individual income taxes on the top 1% of Americans who make over $200,000 a year. How this affects small companies is that most are S-Corps or sole proprietorships whose taxes are on the bottom line profit of the company. See if you are the CEO of a small company and you pull a salary of $100,000. Your company say makes a profit of $150,000. Your taxes are based upon $250,000, not $100,000. This has nothing to do with dividends. Dividends are profit-sharing distributions for investors that hold stock in a company. Most small companys are not publically shared, so the issue of dividends is a minor issue for the private shareholders in the company, if any. Usually, the CEO holds all the shares of a S-Corp.

The issue of health insurance is a no-win situation. If I own a restuarant, my largest expense are labor expenses even though the majority of people I hire are at minimum wage. If I have to worry about paying for health insurance for employees that work more than 30 hours a week, I am doomed. Basically, I will have to hire more people at a PT level in order to get around this.

I remember when I worked as a server in college. Those extra 8 hours a week is what let me eat as well as pay the rent. I did not worry about health insurance. I worried about paying for rent and food. I did have the option of getting health insurance through my community college, but opted out of it becuase the $60-80 a month was too much to pay.

So, when I look at health insurance, I fear that if the government takes it over, my personal really good insurance will go away and be replaced by the cookie cutter government health insurance. I fear that Kerry's government program will be too far reaching and affect those that do not want our employers thinking of the watered-down government option. Now, if Kerry was offering a low cost health plan to anyone that basically was, "If you do not like your employer's plan, you can opt out and the money your employer contributes to your health plan will go to a medical savings account and you can opt in to the government program with before tax dollars." If this was the case, I would go for Kerry's plan.

stoppit stoppit stoppit

[substitute.livejournal.com]

both of you! this isn't what my LJ is for! i was talking about something else! now shoo!