Are We Seperated by an Abyss?

Mr. Clayton asks if we are separated by an abyss. If liberals and conservatives are too far apart in thought and purpose to be able to work together. On many issues, we are too far apart. I do believe that a person who describes themselves as "down the middle" aren't paying attention enough to the world around them. They need to get informed, and pick a side. Of course, there are issues we can find common ground on. But for many of the big ones, it's like trying to mix oil and water. Try it, and what do you get - oily water.

In the spirit of fair debate, I am only going to respond to the issues brought up in the original article by Mr. Clayton. He asks that we address the economy, taxes, energy, foreign policy, and defense. Of course, many of those subjects overlap and do require some explanation from other social categories. I will try to limit that to no more than necessary.

The economy - Clayton asks how we can maintain current levels of economic growth measured by low unemployment, low interest rates, and low inflation. He also asks how we can redistribute wealth and help the less fortunate without harming the economic measures he points to. First, the current American economy is only good for the higher income brackets. Real wages for working Americans have been going down for four years running. Job growth is primarily in lower paying service jobs. The economy is built on a house of credit cards, so to speak. Without drastic economic reforms very soon, the same thing will happen that did the last time rampant conservatism ran the economy. The result was called "The Great Depression."

But what do liberals want to do about it? First, end the ill-advised tax cuts that created the huge deficits. Draw down military involvement in Iraq. Increase the minimum wage. Strengthen the ability for labor to organize. Provide health care for all Americans. The last time ideas like these were prevalent in America is was called 'The New Deal" and it helped bolster and expand the emerging American Middle Class that is now threatened. The one wage - earner families where one income was enough to provide for a household was a direct result of the "New Deal."

Incidentally, health care was proposed for all Americans in 1947. It was defeated by conservatives. Truman decided that it would become an integral part of the new governments of Japan and Germany as part of post war construction. It seems to be working quite well for them.

Taxes - Liberals would immediately reverse the Bush tax cuts. Ultimately, a graduated flat tax is probably the best alternative. Conservatives like to preach "trickle down" economics. According to Bush's own numbers a new job has been created for every 500,000 dollars in tax cut. Wouldn't it be smarter - and better for the economy - if that 500,000 dollars was used to hire ten laborers at 50,000 each to work on building infrastructure? They hypothesize that more wealth at the top tends to filter its way down to lift all boats. It has been soundly disproved. I equate trickle down economics to a multi-floor outhouse. Something trickles down, alright, but it isn't good.

Energy - Clayton asks what liberals would suggest we do if a sudden calamity hit oil production. He asks if we should pump all available oil here. That is akin to having your leg cut off and trying to stem the blood loss by taking it from your arm. North America already passed "peak oil." He asks if we can afford to use incentives to boost alternative energy. I would ask, how can we afford not to? We need to immediately pursue energy alternatives. How to pay for them? A windfall profits tax on oil companies would be a great start!

Foreign policy - Clayton asks if the U.N. should remain. Not only should it "remain," it should be strengthened and fully funded. And it should be given broader authority in certain situations. As for what America can do, we can start being a part of the international community once again. Hillary Clinton has said if she is elected president she would send her husband on a worldwide mission to help restore communication with world leaders. A good start. Liberals know that America hurts itself more than its enemies when it pushes a unilateral and belligerent agenda. He also asks if we should remove our forces from other sovereign nations. From a great many of them, yes.

Defense - He asks if America should reduce its worldwide military footprint. In a word, yes. He asks about pre-emption as a policy. Liberals would not suggest for a moment that we would sit around and wait to be attacked. But neither would we jump haphazardly into conflict without even planning for the aftermath of the initial action. Force would be the last resort, not one of the first. Clayton also asks about the draft, and whether or not it is a good idea. I would support compulsory service. It wouldn't have to be in the military, but it would require each young American to devote at least two years to the service of the nation.

Jim Clayton asks for a debate on issues. It's a very good idea, we need to get more ideas out into the marketplace of thought. And I ask the reader, which arguments make more sense to you?