...well i was wondering if conservative political thinkers ever believe in WIN-WIN? It always seems that when one of my conservative friends posts some political statement on FB then they feel like any other comment is in opposition vs. just possibly a comment to extend the thought, or to clarify or to get some discussion going.
Example: Posted by several conservative friends yesterday (in response to several liberals, however, i didn't realize this until after i had already "knee-jerk" responded then scrolled down to see where it all started):
Mr. C and Ms. C (they are not married, just both happen to have the same last initial for "conservative") say: No one should die because government rationing denies or delays health care, and no one should go broke because his business was shuttered due to socialist healthcare dictates.
Sheila says: nobody should die b/c science was stifled by a religious president either!
Now, I was just posting an additional opinion on the dangers of big government. Of course, they did not know or understand my meaning behind my post and yes, i was being a bit "oppositional" but I would think that the conservatives would have agreed with me that government should not be playing "God" in ANY case....however, here's what two separate ppl said in response:
Mr. C1: Sheila, you'll have to show me where science was stifled. I can't recall any case where science was forced to stop. If you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, the Bush administration was the first to approve federal funding for it, while trying not to cross the line into encouraging researchers to kill more embryos. Besides, (a) adult... Read More stem cells have produced much more actual working therapies than embryonic stem cells, and (b), the federal government has no business funding any scientific research anyway.
Mr. C2 (on a separate post from a separate friend, so it's interesting to note that):
Peripheral stem cell research thrived. and they are as viable as embryonic ones. We had so many oncology breakthroughs in the last decade you can't count them so, no to the stifled science argument. Doesn't fly.
Now i have more thoughts on all this, but again, i ask, why is big government okay when the president that more reflects your values is in office?
To respond to the science issue, was stem cell research the only science happening over the past 8 years? If so, then I believe my statement on stifling would be true. If not, please give me more examples of advancement in research. Unfortunately I have lost some people this year b/c science was not advanced enough to prolong their lives...not that I'm saying it's Bush's fault they died, but the way money was budgeted in his administration certainly did not benefit and advance research in the way it could have and now we are behind and must play catch up.
These are my opinions, and i need to back them up as well....so please give me a little time before "blasting" me and let's look for a WIN-WIN in all this. I see the "WIN-WIN" in that we agree that government should not be playing God. What do you see?
2 comments:
Well, Sheila, as one of the actors in this play, maybe I should elucidate what was going through my mind. Be warned: my mind sometimes bounces around like a ping pong ball in a clothes dryer, so this could take some time.
I wrote the original post that Ms. C. then improved on and posted. (I then re-borrowed her improved statement and re-posted it myself.) This post was in response to several I saw saying "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
Now, I see two ways to interpret a statement like that. One is just a general statement of sentiment and the other is to make a political assertion. As a sentiment, I fully agree with the above. In my ideal world, sick people would get the treatment they need and no one would be reduced to destitution because of illness. To me, this is as obvious as saying "the poor should still get to eat". As a sentiment, I find it too obvious to discuss. Of course we should care for the poor, the sick, the abandoned, etc. Christ told us to.
HOWEVER, in the current climate I see a posting like that as clearly a political one. Looking at the comments, it seems to me that everyone else also interpreted it that way. Generally, political statements like this are used by proponents of government involvement in health care to cast their opponents as unfeeling and heartless. If you oppose the "reforms" currently being proposed by the President and the Democrats in Congress, you are labeled as someone who doesn't care if people receive the medical care they need. Statements of bland sentiment then become rhetorical brickbats used to demonize people like me.
And so, my response, beautifully improved by Ms. C., was intentionally political, making a statement that touched on a couple of things I fear would happen if the President and the Congress pass what they want. In that context, any comment takes on political overtones, unless it is completely tangential or nonsensical.
Okay, so much for the original posting. Regarding your comment: I did not see it as a caution against big government. When you replied "nobody should die b/c science was stifled by a religious president either!", that appeared to me to be a clear comparison being made between this current president (who has made speeches claiming he has more respect for science than his predecessor), and the previous one, who was vilified in some of the press for an "anti-science" attitude and ridiculed for "intruding" his faith into his political life. In my mind, you could only be claiming that (a) the idea that the current president would ration health care is as ridiculous as the idea that the previous one suppressed science, or (b) that the previous president actually stifled science, presumably because of religious concerns. I thought (b) more likely, so I decided to challenge you on it. I am not aware of any "stifling" of science by President Bush. If you can show me examples, please do so, because you stated it as a fact.
(Part 2)
I brought up embryonic stem cell research because that seems to me to be the single issue that President Bush was most ridiculed about. He was falsly accused of "restricting" embryonic stem cell research when in fact he expanded it by providing federal funding for it for the first time. If that was not the science you were thinking of, I apologize, but nothing else sprang to mind. I would also disagree that we are behind scientifically. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the lion's share of medical advances still happen in the U.S.
"Now i have more thoughts on all this, but again, i ask, why is big government okay when the president that more reflects your values is in office?" I cannot speak for others, but for me, big government is not okay, regardless of who is president. The powers and duties of the federal government are plainly laid out in the Constitution, and President Bush pissed me off just as much when he strayed from that as President Obama pisses me off when he wants to stray further. I was unhappy with President Bush's domestic agenda. You might note that in the last sentence of my comment, I said "the federal government has no business funding any scientific research anyway."
Finally, I agree with you that the government should not play God. The government should focus on doing what it is constitutionally mandated to do, and keep the hell out of everything else!
Peace to you, and to your family, Sheila!
"Mr. C1"
Post a Comment