Stevendedalus, I read your article again and I come away with the same impression - that conservatives are not as caring as liberals.
Perhaps that is partially my point, but in no way implicit is there aren’t conservatives who are just as, and exceed, in caring. Bush ‘41, I trust, truly believed in the power of the “thousand lights,” just as his son believes strongly in faith-based assistance. The trouble, however, is that programs such as these are not cohesive and, if I may, mandatory. Though it would be rude to take notes during Sunday collection, subliminally we suspect the guy next to us is not giving his share.
Indeed “compassionate” government does take from those who can afford to pay, but it is not a liberal conspiracy to soak only rich conservatives — most of us are levied in behalf of the poor and defenseless.
I admire your wife for placing the love of her children before her career, but her deep faith in you helped her decision in that her family would not go without. I couldn’t agree with you more that sixteen year olds or any single female for that matter, shouldn’t get knocked up [an argument for abortion?] nor should the government be compelled to support their children unless, their family situation is so desolate that it precludes assistance, nor should the government take the word of the family or the runaway father without an extensive asset search.
I do believe that some are disadvantaged, either congenitally or having the ill-luck of an atrociously shiftless family. In such cases, they should immediately be placed in foster care with no ifs and buts. Nor should the taxpayer be expected to support such a family without a mandatory work program to assimilate them into the mainstream. Given “poor choices” such as drug, alcohol addiction or habitual gambling — except for the family victimized — should not be recipients of welfare but surely the government needs to broach this problem with viable alternatives in order to grow responsible citizens.
It has been my experience that you have two types of liberals. The first type is the type that is already poor and wants more government help. The second type is usually quite wealthy and has always lived an upper or middle class lifestyle. This a broad brush stroke. In the first type there are predominantly hard working people who are still in need of helpful legislation because they are on the low chain of gainful employment — particularly in light of the near demise of unions or bargaining rights. Those in this type who are crude, stupid, lazy people seldom vote and few of whom do are like Nader and can’t differentiate one party from another. I notice that in the second type you do not include those who, like yourself, came from poverty and as a result oddly empathize with the have-nots. There would be no criterion that could rule out your joining this type, but for your hostile stereotyping that leaves little room to make an attempt at compassionate nuances. There are those — when you put down your broad brush — who have as much responsibility as you do but simply are not as gifted as you to climb toward success.
My thrust is not to denigrate the housewife, nor did I suggest she is naive; on the contrary she is a realist and at the crunch point simply recognizes that in the end the nation is a class society — and there it is, case closed.
Actually, I had no intention of branding your ilk with heartlessness; it is simply the way it is — those that have, want more or at least protect what they have; yet among these haves some moderates do see the value of helping out beyond the Dickensian cry: “Are there not poorhouses?” Those who have not, necessarily want more, but also realize that they will remain in the same low class, but with a little more comfort. In no way, do I support those who have nothing but won’t lift a finger to work out of it. [By the way, I did grow up amongst them.]
