That's a complicated question and I have to go to bed. I guess I understand why you'd say what you do. I think, though, it's more accurate to think that liberals -- at least my kind of liberal -- believe not that we have to be cared for all the time, but that we have to be prepared to care for others all the time; not that we are always weak, but that we have to consider that others may require our compassion at any moment. In other words, to hell with rugged individualism, which in my view is usually erected on an invisible foundation of other people's suffering. Of course, the liberal way of looking at things can and often is abused, and the results are repellent. However, to my mind, it d...

That's a complicated question and I have to go to bed. I guess I understand why you'd say what you do. I think, though, it's more accurate to think that liberals -- at least my kind of liberal -- believe not that we have to be cared for all the time, but that we have to be prepared to care for others all the time; not that we are always weak, but that we have to consider that others may require our compassion at any moment. In other words, to hell with rugged individualism, which in my view is usually erected on an invisible foundation of other people's suffering. Of course, the liberal way of looking at things can and often is abused, and the results are repellent. However, to my mind, it doesn't negate the underlying principle, which is compassion and respect even for those who don't appear to deserve it.

you discount liberty in favor of equality ... equality is only possible when everyone is miserable.

Yes to the first point, though "discount" makes it sound like I don't care about liberty. I think liberty is an illusion if it is dependent upon inequality -- or, the word I would use is injustice. Why that requires universal misery, I don't see. I do think it may require a certain amount of universal sacrifice, especially among people who are comfortable and privileged, but I don't know. It's sort of all hypothetical. I don't pretend to live up to these principles very well.

Real compassion is in people, not government.

On the most fundamental le...

you discount liberty in favor of equality ... equality is only possible when everyone is miserable.

Yes to the first point, though "discount" makes it sound like I don't care about liberty. I think liberty is an illusion if it is dependent upon inequality -- or, the word I would use is injustice. Why that requires universal misery, I don't see. I do think it may require a certain amount of universal sacrifice, especially among people who are comfortable and privileged, but I don't know. It's sort of all hypothetical. I don't pretend to live up to these principles very well.

Real compassion is in people, not government.

On the most fundamental level, I think this is true, and especially important for liberals to remember. However, we've built for ourselves such a complicated society, especially on an economic level, that a significant number individuals are completely disempowered, often in ways that are very difficult to discern without some deep study. As a result I think there are some circumstances where compassion has to be institutionalized and formalized. What it translates to, for me, is heightened awareness of my own privilege and of the temptations of selfish behavior, and an ongoing attempt to be aware of the fact that lots of other people had to pay quite a lot in order for me to have the luxury and security that I have. In other words, as a liberal, I believe I don't really deserve most of what I have, and I ought to act accordingly as an honest and generous steward or trustee.

It's just astonishing to me how there seems to be a common inability, lack of talent, genetic flaw, something, that makes comprehension of context, subtlety, irony, parody, word play, and all manner of expression beyond the most basic declarative statement inaccessible and therefore not understandable to so many. This is the only explanation I can come up with for such ridiculously flawed interpretations of the things Rush LImbaugh says.

On the other hand, if this is all just disingenuous misrepresentation of what is actually understood, simply for effect, why? Isn't it possible for you to disagree with every position he takes, and present your disagreement without the pretense? With out f...

It's just astonishing to me how there seems to be a common inability, lack of talent, genetic flaw, something, that makes comprehension of context, subtlety, irony, parody, word play, and all manner of expression beyond the most basic declarative statement inaccessible and therefore not understandable to so many. This is the only explanation I can come up with for such ridiculously flawed interpretations of the things Rush LImbaugh says.

On the other hand, if this is all just disingenuous misrepresentation of what is actually understood, simply for effect, why? Isn't it possible for you to disagree with every position he takes, and present your disagreement without the pretense? With out frontin' like you don't understand his meaning?

By the way, I'm not addressing this at anyone in particular.

Enbar, I do not disagree with you on a personal level. However, I disagree vehemently about this being the role of government. I contend much more compassion would be spread if government had not coopted the role of compassion-giver. Government has only institutionalized the misery. I also feel your view ascribes a level of morality to the entire nation, that much of the left does not embrace in their personal lives (previous statement based on a subjective intepretation of my interactions with leftists, liberals, democrats, and socialists in my personal circles).
In my mind, we can keep it basic. If we just live out the principals that are printed on our money, I fully believ...

Enbar, I do not disagree with you on a personal level. However, I disagree vehemently about this being the role of government. I contend much more compassion would be spread if government had not coopted the role of compassion-giver. Government has only institutionalized the misery. I also feel your view ascribes a level of morality to the entire nation, that much of the left does not embrace in their personal lives (previous statement based on a subjective intepretation of my interactions with leftists, liberals, democrats, and socialists in my personal circles).
In my mind, we can keep it basic. If we just live out the principals that are printed on our money, I fully believe your concerns would be addressed societally.

LIBERTY.......IN GOD WE TRUST......E PLURIBUS UNUM

Yes grubem, that's precisely the point from the article I was trying to call attention to, though I couldn't express anywhere near as clearly as you just did. Thanks.

willhelm, my problem with the way you put it ... namely:

I contend much more compassion would be spread if government had not coopted the role of compassion-giver. Government has only institutionalized the misery.

... is this: what happens to those who are completely forgotten by society and who have no one at all to look out for them? When I spoke about our society's complexity, that's sort of what I was thinking of. There are inevitably going to be people who no family, no congregation, and no neighbors who w...

Yes grubem, that's precisely the point from the article I was trying to call attention to, though I couldn't express anywhere near as clearly as you just did. Thanks.

willhelm, my problem with the way you put it ... namely:

I contend much more compassion would be spread if government had not coopted the role of compassion-giver. Government has only institutionalized the misery.

... is this: what happens to those who are completely forgotten by society and who have no one at all to look out for them? When I spoke about our society's complexity, that's sort of what I was thinking of. There are inevitably going to be people who no family, no congregation, and no neighbors who will reach out to them. There are going to be people who lose their houses because someone lost a job or became injured. As flawed as governmental mechanisms are for dealing with these things, I don't think there's a better alternative.

The other thing is: ultimately, the government is the people, though it often doesn't seem so. We are responsible for what the government does. Does it reflect our values perfectly, or even significantly? All too often, no, but we can't simply say, the government doesn't work, and abandon it. It's ours and we have no choice but to work with it one way or another.

Enbar, I agree on all points. To me, I guess it's more a question of how much the government should be involved. Government as safety net...yes. Government as parent...no.

It's like if I decided I wanted to give 1000 dollars to a needy family. Then, my church thought that what I did was so wonderful they wanted to raise the money and reimburse me. So, they have a bake sale and raise 1000 dollars and give it back to me.
If that were to happen they would have taken from me a gift I had given to not only the needy family, but also to the Lord. Thereby by crushing my spirit in a sense. I firmly believe that is what government has done to our society. America is the most giving country on the ...

Enbar, I agree on all points. To me, I guess it's more a question of how much the government should be involved. Government as safety net...yes. Government as parent...no.

It's like if I decided I wanted to give 1000 dollars to a needy family. Then, my church thought that what I did was so wonderful they wanted to raise the money and reimburse me. So, they have a bake sale and raise 1000 dollars and give it back to me.
If that were to happen they would have taken from me a gift I had given to not only the needy family, but also to the Lord. Thereby by crushing my spirit in a sense. I firmly believe that is what government has done to our society. America is the most giving country on the planet, and I think we would be even more so if we could direct fund instead of government.

If that were to happen they would have taken from me a gift I had given to not only the needy family, but also to the Lord. Thereby by crushing my spirit in a sense.

The problem i have with this kind of reasoning is that it reduces the "needy family" to nothing but an opportunity to exercise charity. What if you hadn't been around? Should the church (or the government) still refrain from helping that family because doing so might inadvertently "crush" someone else's generosity spirit? -- but the family's going hungry in the meantime. Or, what about those families that no one is going to look out for? What about someone with a mental disorder who has no friends? Or, what about ...

If that were to happen they would have taken from me a gift I had given to not only the needy family, but also to the Lord. Thereby by crushing my spirit in a sense.

The problem i have with this kind of reasoning is that it reduces the "needy family" to nothing but an opportunity to exercise charity. What if you hadn't been around? Should the church (or the government) still refrain from helping that family because doing so might inadvertently "crush" someone else's generosity spirit? -- but the family's going hungry in the meantime. Or, what about those families that no one is going to look out for? What about someone with a mental disorder who has no friends? Or, what about families whose values or lifestyles you disagree with -- say, an aging gay couple with AIDS -- or people you wouldn't consider deserving? I think that leaving the welfare of people who are really suffering up to the goodwill of strangers is a risky proposition. We already have a huge proportion of people without health insurance. This is the kind of problem I think cannot be solved without serious government intervention. Sure, some doctors may be nice enough to give their services away for free to the uninsured, but we can't exactly count on that to pick up all the slack.

I don't think I'm being particularly clear here, but maybe that makes some sense.

I understand your comment Enbar, but that wasn't really what I was talking about. And again, I am not speaking of the needy. I am speaking in a broader sense. My analogy was based only on the Christian ethic of charity from an individual perspective, not societal. I agree with you. However, I think our issue is more a matter of degrees. I side more with liberty, charity, community, faith, teaching a man to fish, and a reasonable amount of government assistance. I believe JK would support fully restrictive liberty, no reliance on charity, blocking faith from intervention, unrestrricted government assistance, and an expansion of the welfare state the institutionalizes hopelessness. I suspect y...

I understand your comment Enbar, but that wasn't really what I was talking about. And again, I am not speaking of the needy. I am speaking in a broader sense. My analogy was based only on the Christian ethic of charity from an individual perspective, not societal. I agree with you. However, I think our issue is more a matter of degrees. I side more with liberty, charity, community, faith, teaching a man to fish, and a reasonable amount of government assistance. I believe JK would support fully restrictive liberty, no reliance on charity, blocking faith from intervention, unrestrricted government assistance, and an expansion of the welfare state the institutionalizes hopelessness. I suspect you fall somewhere in the middle. I think it is important to look at what works. I have been contracted by a University to study and keep stats on the federal Families First program. This has done much to move our country in the right direction. However, inner cities are still decimated by the welfare state mentality. This is not Christian, Enbar. This is the opposite.