What we believe: The Seven Commandments.

The Bush administration is in a state of collapse. Around the country, people are starting to talk about the need to impeach and remove Bush from office. Many of these people, like the one-time Republicans described here are, like William Buckley, totally lost and devoid of answers. Especially in Red or Purple areas, everybody will know who the resident liberal is - even if you have never said a word about it.

Now that people who have never considered voting for a Democrat in their lives are doing so now, we need to be prepared to give answers right off the top of our head and be able to tell people what we believe and why we believe it. Not only that, we need to always be able to subject our views to criticism and review by others - liberalism will only become rigid and dogmatic if our principles are not worked on and developed on a regular basis. So, when some disgrunted Republican comes up to you and asks you what makes our party so unique, we need to be able to answer them.


We need to be able to tell people what is right and what is wrong. By this, I do not mean that we should go back to the 1950's and impose a rigid, dogmatic set of rules as to what is right or wrong. Instead, what I propose is that each of us should be able to state for ourselves the principles by we define right and wrong. The principles I give below are by no means the infallable answers - these are simply my answers. My goal is to give people ideas, inspire others to write diaries about their own philisophical basis for why they are a liberal, and learn from others.


1. The sanctity of human life.


All human lives are sacred, and all our policies should promote human life, not destroy it. Not only that, our focus should be on the quality of life, not just the mere absence of killing people. We should be a party which celebrates human life in all of its diverse forms.


On the other hand, we can safely label Bush's policies as evil when they result in the destruction of human life. The Iraq War, for instance, resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human lifes. Bush's policies created conflict which resulted in, for instance, the killing of around 1300 people in the recent Askariya riots.


We can label Bush's recent budget cuts as evil because they will directly affect the quality of life of many people. People who were experiencing financial hardships, for example, will not be able to get as much student aid - they might not be able to start a family, have children, do some good in the world. When a policy results in broken lives, then we can safely label it as wrong.


We can label sins of omission as evil as well - such as Bush's handling of the Katrina disaster. I will be discussing Bush's interview with Elizabeth Vargas extensively, because we need to be able to issue coherent rebuttals. Bush, by his own admission in the Vargas interview, admitted that there was no situational awareness during the Katrina disaster. But that was his own fault. It is the job of the President to cut through the red tape and make sure that there is situational awareness on the ground so that state and federal agencies can respond appropriately. But instead, Bush was strumming his guitar, yucking it up with John McCain, and advocating the banging of his head against the wall in Iraq. By his actions, he showed that he knew about the massive dying in New Orleans, but did nothing. Of course we can make Michael Brown into a scapegoat or point out that Chertoff turned DHS into a personal fiefdom and set Brown up for failure by making him the designated response man - something he was clueless about and which stripped him of all real power. But as the leader, the ultimate responsibility lies with Bush.


2. The defense of the US Constitution and the importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments.


The Republicans are all about controlling people's lives and eroding the Constitution. In response, I cannot emphasize enough how important the 9th is countering this.The 9th Amendment says that the rights granted by the Constitution are not the only ones around. It is a very open-ended amendment that states that you can find common principles contained in the rest of the Constitution and grant people additional rights.


How far this goes is a matter for debate - as the Founding Fathers would have wanted. But at the very least, the 9th Amendment allows one to conclude from the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th that there is a common theme of privacy running throughout the Constitution. If you say that the 9th Amendment is a worthless piece of paper, then you are guilty of selective interpretaion of the Constitution - and you can throw out any law you want as long as it is not convenient for your legal theories.


The same goes for the 10th - It states that rights not granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states or for the people. The Constitution makes a very clear distinction between state governments and the people here - meaning that if there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it, then it is our right to do it.


So, does this mean that I think it is OK to break the law and steal stuff, because the Constitution said it was OK? No, absolutely not. If I steal something, then I am infringing on someone else's right to have their own private property. That is not freedom; that is tyranny. If I beat someone up because they are gay, I am infringing on their right to live their own lives without fear of interference or harassment. That is no different than if the government were to arrest someone for being gay - both activities are prohibited under this theory.


So, do I have an absolute right to free speech? No. For example, during a legal proceeding, the court has the right to know exactly what the truth is about the cases before it. Therefore, I do not have the right to use my free speech rights to lie about what happened. This is what Scooter Libby is being charged with - lying to the courts under oath about what happened in the leaking of classified information.


This is why there is a compelling governmental interest to make laws against perjury. The courts have upheld this interest time and time again. The government has a compelling interest in determining what the truth of th case is; therefore, they have a right to pass laws against perjury.


So, laws are just when they prohibit an individual from infringement on someone's right to live their own lives. Laws are also just when there is a compelling governmental interest in overriding the Constitution - such as perjury, protecting classified information such as the info leaked in Plamegate, or protecting women who have abortions against harassment, for instance.


So, when you look at the Constitution, you see the basis for unlimited freedom to live one's own life without governmental interference, the basis for the government to survive (such as by collecting taxes, for instance), a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from taking absolute power, and the basis for the government to protect those rights from infringement by individuals (a.k.a. crime).


3. The Equality of all people.


The whole basis of our Constitution is the truth that all people are created equal. This does not just involve a knee-jerk reaction against discrimination. It involves equal participation, equal opportunity to succeed, and equal pay for equal work. This applies to our foreign policy as well - if we are in a tough negotiation with Andorra, one of the tiniest countries in the world, it means that we should treat them as an equal partner rather than a country we can dictate to.


On the other hand, Bush believes that women should have no say in decisions that directly affect their bodies. His only exceptions are for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Instead, he thinks that these decisions should be made by an elitist group of theologians rather than by a woman talking to people she trusts as well as her doctor. This is not equal participation when you decide that someone should have no say over personal, private decisions.


People may answer me that the fetus is a life too, so this equal participation rule does not apply. But first of all, that is begging the question - that is the thing we are debating as a country, not a question that has been settled. Secondly of all, by the same logic, they should advocate life or the death penalty for the woman who decides to end their pregnancy. But we do not have very many anti-abortion advocates advocating such a barbaric penalty. This means that deep down inside, they know very well what we have been saying all along - the woman is much more important than the fetus and there is a clear difference between a fetus and a newborn baby.


So, those who would overturn Roe must do one of two things:


1.    Advocate the same penalty for a woman ending her pregnancy that you would for murder;

2.    Accept the simple fact of life - the woman is more important than a fetus and there are much better ways of reducing the number of abortions than overthrowing Roe.


The advocacy of anything else is selective logic - and when you resort to selective logic or the use of selective interpretation of the Constitution, then you have already lost the argument.


4. Lincoln 1860:


We need to make clear and convincing cases for how our policies are going to be different than the Bush administration's. In 2005, the best strategy was to oppose the Bush administration - after all, they were in power. However, now that the elections are coming up, people do not just want to hear that Bush is bad - a typical retort would be that the Democrats are just as bad. Now that Bush is in a state of collapse and we are coming close to an election, we have to tell people how we are different than the Bush administration. This is what Lincoln did, and this is what we need to do now.


If we don't, we will be like John Kerry in the last election. He advanced a plan for Iraq that was not much different than Bush's. Bush turned around, smirked, and said, "Well, I recognize that plan! That's because it's the Bush plan!" We have to be able to explain to people how we are different. If we don't, we will be like Tom Daschle and Martin Frost, who ran ads of themselves and Bush in the same picture and lost the election.


It will not do us any good for Bush to talk about the need to stop terrorism by going to war with Iraq in 2002 or Iran in 2006 - and then have Democrats say, "Me, too!" That is what Jean Carnahan and Max Clelland said in 2002. Their attempts to position themselves as tough on national security did not help them - Rove has no compunction about swift-boating people who supported the Iraq War as well as people who opposed it. On the other hand, Russ Feingold won in a landslide after barely winning his first two times. This is because he was able to draw clear distinctions between himself and his opponent, make it clear where he stood on the issues, and let the voters decide. Dick Durbin, who also opposed the war, got over 60% of the vote in 2002 after getting 54% in 1996. That is the lesson we should learn from Lincoln - the ability to draw clear distinctions between yourself and your opponent.


5. Wholeness:


This is all about supporting policies that contribute to the wholeness and psychological well-being of the individual. Policies that contribute to brokenness in some way, such as encourage crime, violate the right to privacy, or pull the rug out from under their safety nets should be avoided.


Besides the loss of lives that resulted during the Iraq War, we must consider the ghastly brokenness that happens when soldiers are sentenced to live when wounded and treated. Last month, the New York Times did a series of articles that looks at soldiers who become quadriplegic from their war wounds. This is a living hell, with people being totally conscious of what is going on around them yet unable to move, talk, or even breathe for themselves. Friends and relatives consider it a big accomplishment when they are barely able to move a muscle.


And think about the psychological brokenness that happens in people who experience these things:


Soldiers experiencing recurrent nightmares;


Families experiencing emotional black holes when losing a loved one to battle;


Wounded soldiers being forced to pay for their own meals at Walter Reed.


Bush went to war based on a lie. And in so doing, he never considered the devastating psychological consequences that happen to soldiers who become expendable. All of these soldiers have had their lived ruined because of the decisions of one man and one man only: George Bush. So, as long as the Republican Party continues to march in lockstep behind him, they can never be considered credible on family values, because their policies contribute to broken families and broken lives.


6. Openness and Participation:


The way our political system is set up, it is the job of the voters to evaluate their Congressmen, Senators, and President every so often. Therefore, our voters must have as much information as possible as well as a free flow of information so that they can come to an informed decision over who to vote for. Furthermore, we must continue to work to reduce the influence of corporate dollars so that whenever someone sends money to a candidate, it will mean something.


On this side of the aisle, Brian Baird is one of the leaders in his ability to maximize voter participation. He has held over 200 town hall meetings, at least one in every town in his district, since he got elected. In the wake of the disastrous bill that would have allowed finance committee chairs the power to read your tax returns, Baird has fought for requirements that Congressmen have the full text of bills made available to them for at least three days before being voted on. This also increases voter participation by allowing people to review and comment on bills that are important to them. We need to elect more Congressmen like Baird who will do things like this. Furthermore, at his town hall meetings, everybody is open to comment and discuss issues even when they do not agree with him.


This is sadly different from the behavior of Bush. Even as he continues to plummet in the polls, he continues to be as secretive as possible about his activities. In the ABC news interview with Elizabeth Vargas, Bush refuses to provide any details, for instance, about the UAE port deal. All he will say is that the Coast Guard "dropped their objections" to the deal. He will not say what prompted them to do so. He refuses to talk about any meaningful peace plan for Iraq even though our soldiers want to leave as soon as possible. And he regularly refuses to allow Democrats or independent voters into his so-called town hall meetings to answer the tough questions every President needs to answer. Given that the Bush administration is so obsessed with secrecy, what do they have to hide?


7. Respect for science and reason.


The reason we were able to climb out of the Dark Ages was because our forefathers developed a healthy respect for science and reason. They were able to use observations that others were able to replicate in order to overturn long-held truths and make life better for all. Science is designed to work through observation. When you see something that does not add up, a scientist can formulate a hypothesis that either challenges or adds to existing truth. Then, the scientist can design an experiment to either back or destroy their hypothesis. Then, they will suggest ideas for further research and submit their findings for peer review by independent outside sources.


Science should be accompanied by reason and a healthy skepticism. David Hume was one of the foremost proponents of a healthy skepticism. He taught that extraordinary claims must be backed up by extraordinary evidence. This means that if a claim is logistically or scientifically improbable or impossible, you need to present extraordinary evidence to back it up.


This sort of skepticism should have applied during the leadup to the Iraq war. When the Bush administration presented arguments that Saddam had chemical weapons, nukes, and biological agents, that flew in the face of reason, because Iraq was subject to crippling sanctions and did not have the capacity to do so. Not only that, the Bush administration was claiming that Iraq could strike anywhere around the world in 45 minutes. Therefore, we should have insisted that Bush present extraordinary evidence - beyond tiny pictures, which could be any number of things. Colin Powell's aluminum tube pictures were little more credible than the pod theorists, who claimed that the Bush administration attached these pods to airplanes and guided them into the WTC via remote control.


Of course, the pod people presented photos - but those pictures didn't mean a thing because they could just as easily have been landing gear or plane wheels. And Bush, of course, presented photos of aluminum tubes - but these tubes could have been anything, given that they were taken from outer space. They could have been rocks in the sand, oil pipelines, cars, or any other natural occurrence.


And we should have used this kind of skepticism when Bush claimed that Iraq was purchasing Uranium from Niger. All that was needed was a little knowledge of the situation - that the IAEA actively monitors the world's uranium mines, that the company was owned by the French government, and that they would have raised a stink to high heaven if Iraq had even tried to purchase such Uranium. What we as a party need to return to is a healthy respect for science and the scientific process as well as a healthy skepticism for any truth claims that fly in the face of what is known.

Tags: 10th Amendment, 9th Amendment, belief, Brian Baird, brokenness, Bush, David Hume, Elizabeth Vargas, equality, Framing, good and evil, Iraq, katrina, Lincoln 1860, openness, participation, reason, sanctity of human life, Science, Seven Commandments, skepticism, UAE, wholeness (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Tip jar.

by Eternal Hope 2006-03-01 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What we believe: The Seven Commandments.

this is all very well written, kudos to you!

i only have a couple of comments.

one is that i'd like to add an idea that the party hasn't conveyed very well in my opinion and one that i think would be well received, and that is the idea of fiscal and political restraint.  in the past the party has done a terrible job of getting this message across at a philosophical level and has had to resort to "we don't want to increase your taxes" type of arguments which republicans quickly shoot full of holes.  so i think there should be a deep philosophical connection with voters on this subject, not as a reaction to republicans but as a communication to voters that democrats "get it", that fiscal reality is an integral part of the parties reasoning.  this also relates to your (#1 the sanctity of human life) as well as some of your other points.

i think the democratic party makes a mistake by making it seem that things like "the sanctity of life" are beyond such mundane concerns as money, when clearly that's not what the party or the people believes to be true.  to try to communicate what i mean i'll make up an example.  let's say that there is a cause that will save a hundred lives across america, whatever that cause might be.  and it's been studied, seriously, and everyone is convinced that doing whatever action is required will save 100 lives.  i think the party doesn't do enough to justify in the minds of voters the saving on 100 lives in terms of what it will cost.  sometimes the party seems to make the mistake of making it seem like money is no object, that any amount spent is justified by the saving of lives, or that no new law is too intrusive, etc, to justify the end.  some members of the party will say things like that you can't put a value on human life, etc.  i don't think that message plays well with the majority of voters.

most people, especially in rural areas, just don't think like that.  they do see a real value on life.  the reason is that money isn't just something that could be spent at the mall for them, it is, instead, a fruit of labor.  and it's something necessary for their survival.  to say that 1 human life is worth any amount of money is simply wrong to them.  because to create that wealth requires hours of their lives, and there is a limit to the return, a life does have a value to them.  each tax dollar they have to send to washington is real money being taken away from them to feed, shelter, and educate their children, for health insurance, etc, they see these numbers in their budgets and they wonder what all that money is being spent on.  then they hear that saving a hundred lives (for example) is something the government is willing to spend incredible amounts of money on, maybe a billion dollars or more.  which breaks down to let's say 10 million dollars per life saved.  is it really true that a life has no value ?  what could rural peoples do with 10 million dollars ?  at an average wage of let's say 10$us/hour that's approximately ONE MILLION HOURS OF LABOR.  is the government really trying to tell a rural person that people across the country should work one million hours of labor to save a single human life ?  is a human life really worth 10 million $us ?  couldn't one million hours of labor be better spent making safer roads, better schools, etc, to make many more than "one human life" better ?  i mean that is an incredible amount of resources!  local governments in small towns spend years trying to save up enough money for a new parking garage and that kind of thing, they just don't understand why such large amounts of money are being "wasted" on such seemingly unimportant things.  and sometimes they wonder why that money isn't feeding their own kids, putting clothing on their own children's backs.

an average person works 2000 hours a year.  that's approximately 100000 hours in a working lifetime, or at let's say 10$us/hour, approximately one million dollars worth of their labor.  true, many of us make much more than that, but the average person doesn't.  so for every one million dollars the government spends on something that's a whole human lifetime of labor, and that's exactly how a lot of people think about things.  money does have an actual value, it really is someone's food, someone's shelter, a doll for someone's child to play with.  and the democratic party could take this and beat republicans with it by becoming the party of restraint, the party that acknowledges that there is a real human cost to the things that government does.  spending money in iraq is actual human beings lives occupied making war that could have been lived taking care of their children, or making umbrellas or something.

and not just in monetary terms, there's also laws and other intrusive things the government does for the greater good.  a stupid example are laws against fireworks on the 4th of july.  yes, it saves lives.  but is the payment worth the end result ?  entertainment is something that human beings need just as much as anything else, they like to feel joy sometimes.  fireworks laws save lives, and they save children from losing fingers and eyes ... but how many ?  yes, the sanctity of human life is important, but does it outweigh every other consideration, is it so prime in importance that no other objective can stand in it's way ?  do voters have to cast aside all other concerns just to save a human life ?  100,000 people die on this planet every single day.  of course, fireworks laws was a stupid example, but it sprang to mind so i used it.  there are piles of laws out there that are intended to save a few lives here and there which to many americans simply aren't worth the price they pay.  shouldn't the democratic party be the party that is there for the people, who wants to lighten the burden on human beings ... not just stopping government from making unnecessary war, but stopping government from doing all kinds of intrusive annoying things.

so anyway, i liked your thought about "the focus should be on the quality of life, not just the mere absense of killing people".  i totally agree with that.  and i think that quality of life for rural peoples, the urban poor, etc, should include in it's measure simply how much money they are able to keep, the amount of free time they have, etc, etc.  every policy should be measured in it's burden on the american people, and it should be ok sometimes to stop doing things, to not do things, to drop policies, to increase freedoms and joy, to lighten the load ... instead of always expecting the american people to take on more, to shoulder yet another proposal, to pay for yet another pet project.  shouldn't there be some real measure of the cost in human terms for things the government wants to do, some real recognition of the actual price being paid.

i don't know where i was going with that really, but i feel like i had some kind of a point.  i'll just post it as a comment to your very well written piece and leave it out there in case someone could figure out what i was saying.  i think i'm saying that i think the party could get far by being the party that's not afraid to say something is "just too expensive", and taking it to the people and telling them what the costs would have been, and why it just isn't worth it.  this is something i feel is lacking in government in general and that as the party of the people the democratic party could really make theirs and run with it.  the party that's on your side, watching out for you ... not just trying to get you health care coverage or something, but trying to make your life better, trying to get government out of your face, trying to practice restraint, trying to fight the republican machine that wants to spend all your money.  the people want and need a real champion that includes in it's deliberations the actual quality of human beings day to day lives.

by Purple Foxglove 2006-03-01 11:55PM | 0 recs
Taxes:

That is a good question. I think that any tax increases we do must go hand in hand with real and open communication with how the money will be used to make people's lives better. People need to see where their money is going, or they will not vote for any tax increases and they will become gullible to a "Read my Lips" campaign.

So, I think there would be a direct connection between the number of real town hall meetings our political leaders have and the amount of money people will be willing to spend on worthwhile programs. People are totally willing to spend money if they know their money will go to a worthwhile cause.

Here in Washington, suburban schools can always get 2/3's levies passed because people know that their money is going to build more and better facilities and get the student-teacher ratio down. And many other suburban areas are among the reddest areas of the country.

And we also defeated an initiative to repeal a road tax. Traffic is a problem here in Washington, especially here in the Western part of the state. It passed because there were counties in normally red areas that passed it because they knew their money was going to worthwhile causes and ease traffic congestion.

That is what made Bill Clinton so successful -- he invented the modern town hall meeting -- and kept the lines of communication open with people. He could tell us when we needed to make sacrifices and balance the budget -- that is a perfect example of open communication. And he got the budget that did it passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote.

Not only that, the impact of our policies must be real and meaningful -- that is why I would like to see us double the minimum wage -- which is what the UK's is at. In the UK, not only did it create more income, it created more jobs because people had more disposable income to spend. And not only that, it moved people off of welfare to work. Before, it was just as cost-effective to stay on welfare as it was to find a job. But by doubling the minimum wage, it gave people the incentive they needed to get off of welfare and get into work.

by Eternal Hope 2006-03-02 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What we believe: The Seven Commandments.

I'm a progressive because I believe in the American dream, that anyone with a little elbow grease and determination can be successful in this country. I support worker's rights. I believe many of the problems we are facing is because of our weakened labor unions and the misinformation that is fed to the public about them.

I'm also a progressive because I believe in the equality of life, that every living thing in the universe has value. I saw a piece on Nightline about how young people are coming to NOLA from all over the country to help rebuild the ninth ward. That's why I'm proud to be progressive like these young people.

I also believe in the sanctity of life. We need to have a serious discussion about exactly what that means. How can a society condone artificial insemination and executions? Then at the same time say that a women cannot terminate an early pregnancy and that a fetus has constitutional rights. What kind of society places more rights on a fetus than a wrongly accused inmate facing public execution?

I like to use the word progressive because of the connotations so often attributed to the word, liberal. I don't believe in government intrusion into the daily lives. My spiritual beliefs are a part of that. In my book as long as you aren't hurting anybody you can do as you wish. The government we have today is supposedly conservative but it is more intrusive than ever before.

I'm a progressive because I believe in active participation in government. Like the volunteers in NOLA, we can't wait for the government or anyone else to solve our problems. I can bellyache about the electronic voting machines until the cows come home, but it is a far better thing to go out and do something about it. That's a little of what I believe.

What a nice way to start the day!

by misscee 2006-03-02 02:42AM | 0 recs
Lincoln 1860

Is Armando's (at Dailykos) construct. You really should credit him.

See his original post here

and his reprise here

by molly bloom 2006-03-02 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Lincoln 1860

I agree. He deserves all the credit and he is always glad whenever someone else uses his ideas.

by Eternal Hope 2006-03-02 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: What we believe: The Seven Commandments.

In a piece on what liberals stand for, you list headings of stratospheric abstraction - what on earth does wholeness mean? - and then attack particular Bush actions.

Here's one: do you stand for universal health care? I assume you do, though you don't mention it.

How do the principles you discuss manifest themselves in a plan for universal health care that could survive Harry and Louise?

Because, I'd say, if they don't do that, they're not worth much.

by skeptic06 2006-03-02 05:17AM | 0 recs
Harry and Louise:

One of the biggest hysterical attacks against that was the belief that you would not get to choose your own doctor. I think that was an overreach by Clinton -- he and the supporters of the plan should have held town hall meetings all over the country and taken time to build public support for it before taking it to Congress. That way, he could have cleared up any misconceptions about it. Instead, Hillary and her people locked themselves up in a room, and the first word about any details came from grossly distorted versions from Rush.

There are different ways to do it -- the Swedish approach and the UK approach. In Sweden, their system is highly centralized, while the UK is evolving to a much more localized approach where they give the local authorities the money and the local aothorities make the decisions about how to manage the plan as long as everybody is covered.

Health care is a matter of life and death and there should be no price on human life; therefore, it should be delivered free of charge.

by Eternal Hope 2006-03-02 06:45PM | 0 recs
I almost forgot:

By wholeness, I mean a psychological state of well-being. This is reinforced by elimination laws and programs that create hardships on people and which allow them to make their own private decisions without fear of reprisal from anybody.

by Eternal Hope 2006-03-02 06:46PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads