[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

[Steve Jacobson]

Ryan,

Maybe I approached some of this carelessly.  let me try to turn down the emotion and respond.  First, I am not entirely 
comfortable with this debate because I think you are basing your arguments on your definition of 
my position rather than what I actually meant to say.  That could be my doing, though.  I do not believe that health care 
reform, for example, means the kind of 
government run health care experienced by your grandfather.  I simply do not think the status quo is all right, and I don't 
see Republicans suggesting any changes except when they are the minority party and no they won't get their 
suggestions adopted generally.  Still, it is unfortunate when good ideas 
raised by one party cannot be accepted by the other, but both parties are to blame for that.  Conservatives and liberals 
alike chastize members of their parties who do attempt to work with the other party.

However, getting back to my original point, I did not think I was at all vague as to the issue of perception.  As you likely 
know, I 
was not referring to a specific part of the government but rather, that a portion of the perception of ineptness is due to 
the right that we have to expect responsiveness from our government.  This makes it easier to generate anger at the 
government as certain conservative talk show hosts like to do.  Is the government inept?  Sometimes it is, I never said it 
wasn't, but one can find ineptness within the private sector as well.  It is interesting to me that you attribute politicians 
who don't keep their promises to the ineptness of government and that you don't hold the voters responsible for any of 
this.  I think your blaming the government for the financial problems is a very good case in point.  The government 
certainly played a part, but they hardly did it alone.  You choose to spotlight the government's role while overlooking the 
role of some of the financial institutions involved.  Extreme liberals tend to do just the opposite.

You are absolutely right that we should keep a healthy skepticism regarding our government.  However, we need to 
have the same healthy skepticism of those with power in the private sector as well.  The marketplace is a positive 
influence, but we have to be aware of how it can be manipulated.  It can be manipulated by the private sector as well 
as by government regulation.  Also corporate goals are not always consistent with what is good for our country.  

You touched on many things in your note and I do not necessarilly disagree with all of your points by any means.  My 
point isn't to get into a liberal versus conservative debate, rather I am just making the point that I think conservatives 
have to some degree hung a lot of the evils of the world on the government while protecting the private sector, and I 
think that the situation is not quite that one-sided.

Finally, I probably should not have made the comments I made regarding your list.  However, although you have said 
that you only label yourself, you do label people even if not individually.  you refer to 
"liberals" and even "government" has if they didn't have the same sort of variety of opinion that you describe of yourself.  
Of course, I'm not being completely fair here, either, as I am hearing in your use of the term "liberal" the same sort of 
contempt that I hear when that term is used vby conservative talk show hosts and maybe that isn't accurate.  I simply 
see the polarization and even the hatred that is exhibited by both extreme conservatives and extreme liberals as being a 
major part of the grid lock that we experience in government.  It would be wrong to say that all conservatives or all 
liberals are responsible for this, I understand that, but the reason I responded at all was your general characterization of 
"government" and your tendency to characterize health care as being "private" or "government run" which fits into my 
view of polarization.  At the same time, I would hate for my comments to have increased that polarization.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson


On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:59:22 -0600, RyanO wrote:

>Steve, your points are all well-taken. I always enjoy our discussions and 
>have found you to be level-headed in your approach to the issues. I do have 
>to make one exception to that, which I'll address after your larger point.

>First, you are correct when you say that I myself have never had major 
>difficulties with the private healthcare industry. However, several of my 
>family members have had problems that have impacted me on a personal level. 
>My father works for the insurance industry and was at odds with them over 
>his treatment for a severe case of pneumonia several years ago. However, my 
>grandfather was a veteran of World War II and, having experienced a 
>multitude of problems with the Veterans Administration, he decided that 
>private healthcare was a far better option for him.

>My initial post on this matter was in reference to Chuck's comment that 
>government works more smoothly than private industry. My years of experience 
>with social security, plus second hand stories from friends and 
>acquaintances leads me to believe that this is simply not the case.

>You make a few statements in your message that I will post below to 
>illustrate my points.

>I think that part of the ineptness of government is a matter of perception. 
>Americans generally
>believe that government should be responsive and that they should be able to 
>have a voice in how it is run.  This is, of course correct.  On the other 
>hand,
>Americans do not believe that we have a voice in anything that is private, 
>because, after all, it is private.  If we are lucky, we make our views known 
>by taking our
>business elsewhere when we have a choice, but we don't always have a choice. 
>However, even when we don't have a choice, we don't really feel that we have
>any right to complain as we do with the government because, again, it is 
>private.

>Steve, your statements are rather vague here. You say that part of the 
>ineptness of government is a matter of perception. Which part is that? Would 
>that be the part of the government that allowed the terrorist attacks on 
>9/11 to occur? Would that be the part of the government that allowed the 
>financial crisis to hit our country because of their neglect and greed? How 
>about the part of the government that goes to Washington every two years and 
>fails to keep the many promises they make on the campaign trail? Just to 
>anticipate you, I'm speaking of both Republicans and Democrats here. You 
>also say that Americans generally believe certain things. Again, that is 
>hard to quantify.

>I don't believe for a second that "Americans," as you put it, think that 
>way. If they did, nationalized healthcare would've become a reality long 
>ago. I think it's a safe assumption that, since this country was founded, 
>people have complained about the efficiency of government and have instilled 
>in themselves a healthy distrust of those who hold elected office. Even many 
>liberals, who champion more government, privately complain about the 
>efficiency (or lack there of) with which the system is run.

>I think it's a fair assumption that many people have a healthy dislike for 
>businesses that grow too large to the point where they become a monopoly. At 
>times, such as in the case of Microsoft, the government steps in and stems 
>that growth. However, I do feel it is erroneous to assume that most 
>Americans feel that they are powerless when it comes to the influence of the 
>individual consumer over the private marketplace. Any novice economics 
>student knows that the consumer *is* the marketplace. If people weren't 
>aware of this fact, they would never complain to managers of restaurants, 
>communications companies, car manufacturers, etc. If your assertions were a 
>reality, companies would not begin and end every single day.

>You also voice the frustration of the lack of choice in certain private 
>areas. I can understand this frustration. If I live in a smaller town with 
>only one cable company, and that cable company sucks, I may be screwed. This 
>was certainly the case when I was growing up in the late '80's and early 
>'90's in Nebraska. However, once the cable companies became dominant, it 
>wasn't long until satellite dish and Direct TV took root. In the 
>marketplace, that is called competition. When you and I are talking about 
>it, its called choice. Where then would a person go if he/she did not like a 
>particular government service? If I find government healthcare 
>unsatisfactory for whatever reason, what are my options under a system in 
>which the government takes over the majority of control?

>Speaking of healthcare, I would argue that government does not always foster 
>the theory of choice into reality. Liberals often demonize Republicans and 
>conservatives as, "The party of no." That wasn't the case when President 
>Obama brought the issue of healthcare reform to the forefront over a year 
>ago. Many Republicans offered alternative solutions as part of the process. 
>One of those solutions involved the removal of restrictions that would 
>prevent individual consumers from going across state lines to seek insurance 
>from another state. Democrats paid no attention to this suggestion, just as 
>they turned a deaf ear to the idea of tort reform; two of the biggest 
>factors that drive healthcare costs upward in our country. Steve, do 
>regulations telling a citizen where he or she can and can't buy insurance 
>add to or take away from that person's free choice?

>Here is another statement from your message:

>I maintain that part of the problem with government programs is not that it 
>is government but because the
>bureaucracy is so large.

>I would answer that, in a nation of 300 million plus people, it would be 
>impossible to maintain any form of government without some form of 
>bureaucracy. I believe that the terms government and bureaucracy are 
>synonymous.

>I submit that conservatives have a double standard because activists use the 
>fact
>that we feel that we have a voice in our government to whip up our anger 
>against that government and keeping our attention off those aspects of the 
>private sector
>that probably deserve just as much of our anger.

>Steve, forgive me if I'm missing something here, but this statement makes no 
>sense. Are you suggesting that conservatives are hypocrites because some of 
>them are protesting the size or the role of government while continuing to 
>acknowledge that very entity? If so, I strongly disagree with you. Liberals 
>have always found it fashionable to protest everything from the government 
>to private industry, particularly when Republicans have achieved domination 
>in D.C. Yet, when conservatives finally band together and speak out (which 
>doesn't historically happen as often), we're labeled as hypocrites, 
>hate-mongers and even terrorists in some quarters. In truth, we are merely 
>exercising the same rights that have proven successful for labor unions, the 
>civil rights movement, etc.

>If you are suggesting that conservatives are deliberately focusing anger 
>against the government to deflect it away from the private sector, again I 
>must disagree. This may in fact be happening, but I don't think it is 
>intentional. It may be more a matter of priorities for those who have taken 
>to the streets. I won't deny that the various political factions that make 
>up the two major parties provide balance for this country. Perhaps 
>conservatives can at times be a bit short-sighted when it comes to the flaws 
>in private industry, but you can bet that those same bands of liberal 
>protesters, backed by the media, will be there to point out every problem 
>(major and minor) that exists in the private sector.

>Now, here is the final statement you make. It's the one that kind of ticks 
>me off a bit.

>I'm not sure what is to be gained by labeling people and isolating oneself 
>to exchange ideas with people who already
>agree with you, but of course you have that right.

>I'm going to assume that you are referring to the conservative list that 
>I've recently set up. Steve, I haven't labeled anyone except myself. I am no 
>different than a member of the National Federation of the Blind who 
>subscribes to a particular philosophy choosing to call himself a 
>Federationist. I am not a robot and don't agree with all aspects of 
>conservatism, just as I don't agree with every single tenant of the 
>Federation. However, my predominant philosophy is best described as 
>conservative.

>I set up this list primarily for people who want to find others who share 
>their views. As I said a couple of days ago, many people have told me that 
>they felt alone out there in their beliefs and are glad to find a network of 
>likeminded people with whom to communicate. However, I haven't isolated 
>myself or anyone else from differing viewpoints. I make it clear in my 
>list's welcome message and I made it clear when I announced the list on 
>NFBTalk that anyone of any political stripe is welcome. I believe that 
>discussion and debate are healthy things; a view that, frankly, is not 
>always shared by the leadership of the NFB.

>If you want to join the list Steve, I'd love to have you. I've always 
>respected your opinions and think you would provide a valuable insight. If 
>you don't want to join, I respect that too.

>Have a great weekend.


>RyanO



>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org