Liberals - What Would Make You Happy?

[Regnad Kcin]

As we happy few knock heads in this forum day after day, pretty much to little effect, I'm curious.

Let's say you've been given a blank slate -- although the Constitution, as it stands today, is in place. History, too, is unchangeable. And the current major players on the national as well as world stage are all in place.

In essence, I wonder what you would alter to bring about a more utopian state of affairs by your estimation if you could, in effect, will it so. What would make you happy? Seriously.

Certain restrictions on private firearm ownership? Same-sex marriage made legal? Abortion and abortion counseling available through the medical profession? A balanced budget and an equitable taxation policy? Anything is up for grabs, as long as it's not too fanciful.

I am sincere in starting this discussion and will hope it stays on topic, even as others of a similar viewpoint, and certainly those opposed, debate your suggestions.

This is a companion piece to the one I've started for the opposite end of the political spectrum (as commonly accepted in the U.S.), and I invite your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[drkitten]

I am sincere in starting this discussion and will hope it stays on topic, even as others of a similar viewpoint, and certainly those opposed, debate your suggestions.

This is a companion piece to the one I've started for the opposite end of the political spectrum (as commonly accepted in the U.S.), and I invite your thoughts.

I suspect that this discussion (and its companions) will quickly get bogged down in endless ends/means arguments. Just as an example, one of my "hot button" topics tends to be funding for state schools (and public education in general). I'm, not to put too fine a point on it, in favor. I believe that everyone should have the best possible education at the lowest possible cost, and I think that a well-run state school system is the best way to achieve it.

I know a number of other posters, who I will not bother to single out by name, who are convinced that the phrase "well-run state [anything] system" is oxymoronic. I doubt they would disagree with me about the goal (that would make both of us happy), but I am convinced that every single step taken by recent "conservatives" in the United States actually weakens public education (I refer specifically to the No Child Left With Sufficient Funds After the Mandatory Testing act, among other various policies).

 

[Tmy]

Im mostly liberal. Im kinda cool at the way things are now. Although a revampped national health plan would be an improvement.

Oh. And Bush out of office. Thats a must.

 

[Ladewig]

Short answer - I'm in favor of anything that raises Jerry Falwell's blood pressure: comprehensive sex education, no ID in science classes, legalizing same sex marriage, legalizing pot.

I want political discussion to go past, "You're a poopy head. No, YOU'RE a poopy head." I want an open and examinable government [cough]Cheney energy task force[/cough]. I want a presidential staff that doesn't play word games in press conferences and press releases (and depositions (yes, I don't want any future presidents playing the kind of word games that Clinton played)). I want a president that is capable of making tough decisions and is willing to testify under oath (in extraordinary circumstances) about those decisions.

I want a viable third political party. Scratch that, I want a viable third and fourth political party.

I want a press corp that will stand up and be counted.

Perhaps, I'm not all that liberal - I don't want any additional gun laws.

 

[punchdrunk]

I'm assuming, since you specifically mentioned the Constitution was still in place, that my powers would be limited to whatever role I chose, e.g. if I were President, I couldn't make laws.

If I were President, in no particular order:

I would send more troops to Iraq to better control the insurgency until such time the Iraqis could do it themselves. I would step up (or begin) the process of sending the Iraqis the equipment they say they need to control the insurgency.

I would immediately halt all forms of torture-light in use by the CIA and shut down all secret internment camps; all illegal combantants would be held on US soil to be acknowledged and visible for scrutiny by the American people and press.

I would devote more resources to our intelligence gathering in places like North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc., so that we can better understand and prepare for the actions of our ideological enemies.

I would step-up pressure on Pakistan to better control its northern area where Al-Qaeda still has a presence.

I would re-examine the issue of trade with authoritarian governments such as China to determine whether freer trade helps or hurts the democracy movement. Reagan tied economic incentives to human rights issues and many would argue that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in the USSR.

Otherwise, with democracies, I support free trade.

I would advocate for bigger salaries for our troops. I would advocate for our veterans to receive better healthcare and pensions.

I would champion a constitutional amendment that specifically extended the rights outlined in the 14th amendment to gay men and women. I would fail, but hopefully during that process a grass-roots movement would come to fruition like the abolitionist movement in the 19th century.

I would champion a constitutional amendment that specified public use as mentioned in the 5th amendment as strictly for public works projects such as new highways, and not "community betterment" plans.

I would champion an amendment that repealed the 17th amendment.

I would champion an amendment to give the President the line-item veto.

I would commission a study on illegal drugs to determine the true harmfulness of each to society and individuals; I would advocate for laws and sentencing guidelines that fit those findings.

I would set up a low-cost website that allowed all political parties to promote their ideas; this would link directly off whitehouse.gov.

I would advocate for smart-lock laws for handguns in an effort to curb gun theft; stolen guns are a common denominator in gun violence.

I would endeavor to make government information more accessible to citizens.

I would give each state money and resources to come up with a model for improving public education. I would then tie future federal funding to the most successful models.

I would advocate for a short-term tax hike to help pay for the Iraq war.

I would commission studies on Social Security, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs to come up with long-term solutions for the cost of these programs, with the goal in mind to decrease the amount of taxes we devote to them.

I would decrease the budget for the military. With this and entitlements, I would hope to some day, long-term, substantially decrease the amount of money the federal government takes in.

I would publicly ridicule and harang the pork-barrel projects legislators include in the budget in an effort to get them to actually be better stewards of the taxpayers' money (unti I got that line-item veto amendment passed).

I would have weekly press conferences.

And, if elected, I would have the power and money of both the GOP and the Democrats against me, as well as Congress; it would be made certain that I go down as the worst president in the history of the United States (regardless whether I deserved such a distinction or not.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Just as an example, one of my "hot button" topics tends to be funding for state schools (and public education in general). I'm, not to put too fine a point on it, in favor. I believe that everyone should have the best possible education at the lowest possible cost, and I think that a well-run state school system is the best way to achieve it.

I'm not a liberal, but we would probably agree on what society owes children. Good education, good health care, physical security, freedom from indoctrination and prejudice. An expansive but supportive environment. Where I'm probably not a liberal is in regard to such things as a parent's right to indoctrinate their children, be that with religion, ideology, prejudice of any kind. My ideal society would be interventionist in such matters, which is not classically liberal.

I'm also against universal suffrage. But every child should have a chance to be worth the vote when they mature.

 

[gnome]

I'm also against universal suffrage. But every child should have a chance to be worth the vote when they mature.

Now there's an interesting idea... who would be allowed to vote, and, more importantly, how would you determine it?

 

[balrog666]

Now there's an interesting idea... who would be allowed to vote, and, more importantly, how would you determine it?

One vote for every dollar paid in taxes.

Vote online.

Apportion your tax dollars the way you want them spent.

All old ideas.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'm a little concerned that this thread will be used by the hard-core right wing to identify "liberals" and get them on some Homeland Security checklist.

Charlie (Bush is great! I love the GOP, death to liberals) Monoxide

 

[Elind]

As we happy few knock heads in this forum day after day, pretty much to little effect, I'm curious.

Let's say you've been given a blank slate -- although the Constitution, as it stands today, is in place. History, too, is unchangeable. And the current major players on the national as well as world stage are all in place.

In essence, I wonder what you would alter to bring about a more utopian state of affairs by your estimation if you could, in effect, will it so. What would make you happy? Seriously.

Certain restrictions on private firearm ownership? Same-sex marriage made legal? Abortion and abortion counseling available through the medical profession? A balanced budget and an equitable taxation policy? Anything is up for grabs, as long as it's not too fanciful.

I am sincere in starting this discussion and will hope it stays on topic, even as others of a similar viewpoint, and certainly those opposed, debate your suggestions.

This is a companion piece to the one I've started for the opposite end of the political spectrum (as commonly accepted in the U.S.), and I invite your thoughts.

Thanks!

How about a constitutional requirement for a certain minimum level of education in order to have all rights of citizenship, with appropriate concessions towards innate ability?

I might also throw in compulsory ongoing education for all incarcerated criminals.

Liberal enough for you?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A tip o' the laptop screen to all (especially rhoadp!) for the thoughtful contributions thus far.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Living in a country other than the United States. Oh, look, I do!

* does little happy dance *

 

[Darat]

Government: responsible to the society that grants it is powers, as small as possible.

Individual: freedom, based on the concept that individuals are also part of society and the idea of informed consent

Society: no one goes without basic human rights e.g. food, shelter, education, health care, clothing, equal access to justice

 

[Chaos]

Government: responsible to the society that grants it is powers, as small as possible.

I think that has been the idea all along. Dunno what went wrong, though. Maybe some politician or another became too enamoured to power?

Individual: freedom, based on the concept that individuals are also part of society and the idea of informed consent

With laws covering only those parts where the freedom of twqo or more individuals collide? Sounds good.

Society: no one goes without basic human rights e.g. food, shelter, education, health care, clothing, equal access to justice

Communist!
No, all joking aside, this is a good principle, but the current ways of trying to implement this need an extreme overhaul.

 

[Darat]

Well thankfully this is a hypothetical thread so I don't need to explain how I think my idea of happiness could be reached.

 

[David Swidler]

Roast chicken. It all comes down to roast chicken. Maybe some Yukon Gold potatoes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Living in a country other than the United States. Oh, look, I do!

* does little happy dance *

Any other country?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, all joking aside, this is a good principle, but the current ways of trying to implement this need an extreme overhaul.

It will, in the US, take a great deal of change in people's mind. Despite the rather admirable goals of the United States of America.

They just need to progress a bit, that's all.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Any other country?

Did I say that? No.

Not any other country.

I like my own cozy little European social democracy though. Yum.

Edited because at first I answered CFL on the basis that "any" was a quotation from me.

 

[Skeptic]

Now there's an interesting idea... who would be allowed to vote, and, more importantly, how would you determine it?

Unless CD is going for the idea that voting should be restricted to those with certain amount of property (or religion, or yearly income, or taxes paid, etc.), the test would have to be in terms of what opinions or views the voters hold, or some other euphemistic version of that such as "their commitment to society" or "their knowledge of the political process".

All such criterions mean, in effect, that those who have the right to vote are those who fulfill the criterion, "at least roughly agreeing with CarpelDodger".