Jason,

Thank you for apologizing about the plasma TV issue.  A lesser person would have tied himself up in knots just to maintain the position that I have disdain for the poor.  I'm a pretty average guy who's had a taste of both ends of the economic spectrum plus the middle, so I know better than to take anyone's economic circumstances lightly.  And I apologize to you for letting my temper get the best of me.  It manifested itself in some condescending statements about you that were unfair, and I regret making those statements.

No doubt, we'll have to agree to disagree on certain issues, as the discussion becomes circular in nature.  My appreciation of Ronald Reagan comes largely from living through the Carter years.  Jimmy Carter was helpless and indecisive, and he essentially blamed the American people's simple desire to live their lives for the ineffectiveness of his Administration.  Ronald Reagan changed everything because he showed that he was confident in the American people and our ability to make our lives better.  His attitude made all the difference in the world, as he believed in the American people to do for themselves what the government was so clearly unable to do for us.

In my view, the fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatism is based on a trust of the individual to do the right thing for himself and for the community.  Opportuninity and accountability go hand-in-hand.  Liberalism, on the other hand, is an ideology that seems not to trust individuals to do the right thing...in effect government can do a better job addressing your needs than you can.  I believe I do a better job of addressing the needs of myself and my family than government ever could...because I'm in a better position than the government is to know what my needs are.  But, ultimately, I cannot address my needs and those of my family in a vacuum...necessity is the mother of invention, and if I am not meeting the needs of others in my work, I can't succeed.  I am accountable to my customers, and if I do a poor job of meeting their needs, I suffer.  If someone can do a better job at what I do than I do (especially at the same or better price), my customers will likely leave me and go to my competitor...and it's up to me to make my business relevant again.  I can't take my customers for granted, especially if someone else can do what I can do, because they won't stand for being ignored and so will not be customers for long.  Government insulates its agents from accountability for failure within layers and layers of bureaucracy.  And the government will always point to a perceived lack of funding for their failures...always looking outward rather than inward.  As a government employee, you can do a poor job and never be found out because it takes too much effort to isolate the failure.  If I go to a courthouse to look at a file and one of the desk employees loses this important file, causing me problems, I can't take my file searching business elsewhere to make sure this doesn't happen again.  The exclusivity aspect creates zero incentive for the government employee to do a good job.  Does that serve to benefit the "customers" the government has taken the responsibility to look after? 

When Gray Davis was reelected as Governor of California, one of the first things he did was hire 48,000 new cubicle employees to the state payroll.  These were essentially political payoffs for people who worked on his reelection campaign.  In an effort to pay for these unspecified jobs, Davis floated the idea of raising taxes.  When this proposal was ridiculed by the taxpayers, Davis floated another idea...threatening to lay off understaffed government offices at the service level (the "if you don't give in to my tax increase proposal I'll have to lay off DMV employees, police, fire and school teachers" approach) thus softening the people to accept a tax increase to pay for the additional 48,000 Davis associates on the payroll.  The City of Los Angeles (or maybe it was the County) got beaten in Court recently for enacting a 10% sales tax on the usage of telephones...because they failed to use the proper channels to enact such a tax.  The legislators essentially slid a hidden tax by the taxpayers without the proper authority to do so.  One of the propositions on the primary ballot in February involves the City (or County) asking the taxpayers to accept a 9% tax on telephone usage (rather than the 0% the Court determined they were entitled to)...but they are presenting it as a 1% tax cut.  Anyway, I realize these examples are anecdotal, but I think they illustrate just why conservatives don't trust government to administer the necessary services to the people.  Government corruption thrives in that atmosphere because those who govern rely on the ignorance (as in lack of information...not stupidity) of people to accept that government is working to serve the needs of the people when it really isn't.

We'll disagree on taxes, but suffice it to say it's not the Republicans who are demanding increases in taxes...it's the Democrats.  The Republicans believe that the war effort can be fully funded without raising taxes.  Strange, isn't it?  What does that mean?  It means that the Treasury is bringing in enough revenue to support the war effort and to fund the necessary social programs.  Democrats seem to believe that the war effort is draining the Treasury of funding that could go to social programs...and rather than cutting fat from some of these social programs, they expect Republicans to pay more taxes to support the war effort, when their real concern is maintaining the bloated programs.  Sorry, no sale.

As for police, fire and medical, I believe that communities get the best service when they take it upon themselves to pay for it.  How many communities in America, lacking the resources to hire a full-time fire department still manage to get the job done by banding together and creating a volunteer fire department?  If health care was a mostly cash business with insurance needed only for catastrophic (and the trial lawyers didn't have such a parasitic influence on the system), more doctors would avail more people of more services in a much more affordable manner.  The element of competition would be introduced to the system, and ultimately, the doctors would have to find better, less expensive treatments for their patients just to stay in business.  Drug companies could develop the medications necessary to treat a greater array of illnesses more effectively without constantly looking over their shoulders for the John Edwards' of the world to shake them down for another pound of flesh.  Lawsuit abuse damages everyone, yet sleazy trial lawyers continue to profit at society's expense (i.e. on the backs of hard-working Americans, rich and poor) by using specious class envy arguments to win massive punitive judgments...gumming up the works towards a progression for new treatments.

My disdain for academia is rooted in the common misperception that higher education is somehow a prerequisite for success and that the lack of a college degree should be a barrier to entry in the job market.  Frankly, you don't need a college degree to have a successful and rewarding career nor is the possession of a degree a guarantee of one.  But that doesn't prevent academia from trumpeting its own "unquestionable" necessity at every turn or for bureaucracies in government and the private sector to cement that perception by closing shop to those without degrees (no matter how qualified and exemplary a non-degreed applicant is).  Add that to the facts that tenured professors are largely unaccountable for their teaching performance and that their students are captive audiences fully reliant on grades (and often forced to regurgitate professor's subjective opinions as objective truth), and you've got a potentially explosive cocktail.  Not to mention that many of the college graduates in my experience (myself included) are pinheaded snobs with disproportionally high opinions of themselves and zero common sense.  I don't hate academia, I just don't believe it's nearly as relevant and necessary as its champions suggest that it is.  

As for labor unions, one has to be suspicious of an entity that is so uncertain of its own relevance that it must prevent its own members from engaging in the honorable tradition of secret balloting to determine their fates.  And, any institution that must use the implied threat of violence to prevent people from "crossing the picket lines" can't have too much confidence in the merits of its arguments.  I've witnessed enough goons at grocery stores telling 4-year old children that their mothers are scabs to invest much sympathy in their position.  Reductive?  I don't think so.

Anyway, Jason, thanks again for your apology, and I reiterate my apology and regrets for some of the things I wrote to you.  I understand that we will likely have some more ideological clashes from time to time, but that's what this forum is about and we can certainly keep it respectful.  Take care.

-fitz  

...only ideology at the political level of government.  It has been my experience that most people who vote liberal don't do so because they buy into the ideology, but rather, because there specific need is covered as part of the ideology.

That's why I think those that vote liberal do so for selfish reasons.  As such, they tend to care less about the nation as a whole or for upholding the Constitution because these things only matter in the context of whether their specific group is being represented appropriately. 

I could be a liberal too, if I wanted to take the easy road.  I like to play Texas Hold'em.  Don't see anything immoral about it.  Yet Bush passed the internet gaming bill which pretty much makes it illegal for me to sit home and play poker on the computer.  My union friend from Chicago tells me constantly that if his party were in office, I'd be able to play poker on my computer anytime I wanted. 

But I think the principles of small government coupled with a strong military and individual liberties to be more important. 

What bothers me about people that vote liberal is that you really can't argue with them.  They'll see your point and maybe even agree with you.  But they simply won't vote conservative as long as their core issue(s) is not fully supported by the movement. 

I think I pretty much know what Jason's core issue is and as long as that issue is most important to him, there's no changing his mind.