Rambling towards an identity

I've been working lately at trying to categorize myself. I know that labels are utterly meaningless in the end, but they're something that can be helpful in the process of trying to define oneself and explain to others what that definition might be.

Part of what's made it hard is how easily those labels get thrown around and abused in daily conversation, which has just been amplified and made so much worse in the course of the election this year. "Liberal" and "Conservative" have gotten to the point of practically being insults when lobbed across the aisle at the other party. I try to hold myself above that level of discourse, but I'm not guiltless by any means.

So what am I? In my own mind, I see myself as a moderately progressive liberal. On the core issues, that's where I see the majority of my personal beliefs being reflected. I do think that welfare and social security are good things and form the security net that is part of the social contract the government and people have agreed to. I do think it's wrong to have a wholesale legal ban on abortion, though there are forms of abortion that can and should absolutely be limited. I do think that the Second Amendment, while (arguably) granting the right to personally bear arms, does not mean that this is an unfettered right to own any and all forms of weaponry - it just makes so little sense to me that it requires a license to drive a car and get married, but not to own a gun. I do think that everyone deserves the opportunity to marry the person they love - straight, gay, transgender, whatever.

And in the more traditional, literal sense of what progressive and conservative mean, I think we always need to keep our eyes looking to the future and trying to adapt to the present in a liberal sense rather than keep looking backwards and simply trying to maintain tradition in a conservative sense. This is something that I think is at the core of the big split between red and blue, yet it often gets overlooked. The very words we use to define the two sides have some meaning. I understand that "conservative" originated with the meaning of fiscal conservatism, and that's something I actually think about a lot, but more on that later. But if you look at where politics stands today, conservatives tend to want to keep things they way they've always been - they want religion at the heart of society and government; they don't want the immigrants coming in and changing things; they don't want to let gays get married because that's not the traditional idea of marriage. And liberals/progressives look at these ways of doing things and see changes that they believe will make things better. When it reaches the point of trying to change the way things "have always been done", there's obviously going to be a huge clash and that's where we are right now.

That doesn't mean that this stuff is at the same level of what has happened in the past. Are the reforms liberals pushing for now of the same degree or importance of what the founding fathers did? The suffragists? The civil rights movement? The closest you can come to that might be with gay marriage. To me, it's not quite the same because that's a small portion of their rights (albeit an important one), the rest of which were fought for and protected as part of the other struggles in the 20th century. But for the most part, it really seems like all the "big" battles are over and now we're picking up the pieces and fighting the smaller battles that are left to be fought.

Maybe you could make a case that the one big battle left to be fought is the one for economic equality, and there are rumblings going on in the wake of the economic collapse that could lead to this happening. The problem I see here is that there's no clear path to "victory". I think it's fairly obvious that there is something inherently inequitable about 1% of the population controlling 60% of the wealth in the world.

But what's the answer? I certainly don't have it. I see potential in a socialist-inspired method, but the problems inherent in that system are difficult to overcome. How do you prevent the greed and corruption that turn socialism into Stalinist communism? How do you provide the motivation to reach as high as you possibly can with your talent without the incentive of proportionately greater compensation? That's the flaw with the concept of, "From each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs" - there is no motivation beyond simply believing that people will work as hard as they can. And from what I've seen, most people will be as lazy as they can get away with, so there needs to be something to motivate them.

To some extent, I think there is a lot to learn from Europe in this sense. Many countries there have found ways to incorporate pieces of democracy, capitalism and socialism together in a mostly cohesive framework. They have taken the idea of a social contract between citizen and government to heart, the idea that the purpose of government is to take care of its people - all of its people. They've decided that health care and education are fundamental to properly caring for and preparing their citizenry, and they've made the sacrifices needed to make it happen.

And after rambling off on a tangent, this brings me back to the idea of fiscal conservatism. At its heart, I truly believe in this principle. The goal of every government should be to never spend more than it takes in in revenue. Obviously, there will be times when this isn't possible such as wars, famines, and other crises. But we've seen vividly in the past year the consequence of overextending. What I don't agree with, and many conservatives have connected the ideas, is that fiscal conservatism means small government and minimal spending. Just because you believe in balanced budgets, that doesn't mean you can't add programs and increase the ability of the government to provide for its people; it just means you have to be able to pay for it.

That is the crux of the problem, because the only way to do that is to raise taxes. And I can't remember the last time I heard people on either side talk honestly about raising taxes. It seems like everyone just wants to lower taxes and still enjoy everything that we've come to expect from government - and more! But it doesn't work that way, and our $10 trillion national debt graphically illustrates that. You want to spend more? Well, then you need to collect more taxes. The idea that lowering taxes results in higher total revenues works to an extent, but I believe that it fails in the long run.

The simple - and only - answer is that, if you want to spend more, you have to raise taxes. If we had nationalized health care and I had higher taxes, but didn't have the $300 a month insurance premium I have to pay now, I'd bet that at best I'd pay a good deal less and at worst have a slight increase in total amount of taxes each month. Isn't that worth it to have health care provided for me, my family and everyone in the country that needs it regardless of income?

How does this all define me? It really doesn't; it mostly just gives a basis of explanation for me. Much of this has been at the heart of my thoughts for many years now. It's what I concluded was the "right" way to do things and what I've continued to investigate to make sure that it is still the "right" way to go about things over the ensuing years. And "right" isn't the right word - these are the things I think will be most helpful, most beneficial to me, my country and my fellow citizens. That doesn't make them "right"; it just makes them right to me. If you disagree with me, that doesn't make you wrong - it just makes you less "right" than I am!! :D