Greetings,
Well now that we are unofficially in the
"New Cold War," I think it's a good time to add a new entry.
On Tuesday night this week, I went to see
former Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
speak at Texas A&M. Let me start by saying that she is an extremely
charismatic, well-spoken, witty, and humorous public figure. She had a lot of
interesting perspectives, both good and bad in my opinion, which I'll get to in
a minute. If you're a conservative, this is the person you should be pushing as
the only viable candidate in 2016. Honestly, who is going to compete with
Hillary Clinton (assuming she runs)? Every other household name in the
Republican Party either has too much baggage, or is too far right. As for me, I'm
not in support of either of the main parties, which may not be the smartest way
to vote. But in my opinion, "tactical voting" has only propagated our
problems.
So I'll start with the positive things
that Condi had to say:
1) Ms. Rice is pro public education and
actually took a more Democratic stance on this issue. Now, I actually agree
with the ideology, which, oddly enough, is contrary to the overall Libertarian
platform. She asserted "American K-12 public schooling is in a dire
state." She also pointed out that if college becomes too expensive for
most people to afford, then America's role as a nation with equality of
opportunity would severely diminish. Like I said, I agree with Condi's
statements. However, she didn't propose any solutions.
I'm not quite sure that the federal
government is necessarily the solution to all of America's education problems.
But yes, they should play some sort of role in the reform process. I think
communities and municipalities are best suited to figure out what will work
best for them. Then, if they need help monetarily from the federal government,
they should apply for it and if deserved, be given that help. College is an
entirely different animal and I personally feel that all the subsidies do is
make college more expensive.
2) She also said; "Entitlements are
killing us." True, but again, she didn't propose any solutions.
I've already mentioned this in previous
posts, so here's a quick summation of my proposal. Implement the Fairtax (H.R.
25); everyone under the age of 28, unless they are already receiving Social
Security and Medicaid benefits, will now be responsible for their own
retirement (including medical health planning for post retirement years);
Welfare and Unemployment should be handled entirely at state and local levels;
and finally, disability should be the responsibility of the entity that caused
the person the disability. Now, with all that being said, there would obviously
be some exceptions to the rule, but those should be handled on a case-by-case
basis. Again, this is just a brief summation. I realize that it would be more
complicated and require detailed legislation to govern certain
circumstances.
3) Another good point; "We need to
continue to be a country of immigrants." I agree. All this
anti-immigration rhetoric coming from the right is pretty hypocritical when you
think of Adam Smith's view of the world and laissez faire economics. Free
crossing of international borders in all directions stimulates competition. Our
current protectionism is what makes prices high on American made products. A
truly free market (which would require more reform than just immigration)
allows for competition to give the consumer (of any good or service) the best
possible product for best possible price. I'm not saying just let anybody come
across our borders or through our air and seaports; but beyond screening out
criminals and fugitives, we should allow free flow of people. This doesn't mean
give them access to benefits, but let them come and earn their own way and let
the citizens here buy goods and services from them. If people here at home are
robbing us in the market because they don't have to compete with equally
skilled labor at lower prices, then that isn't a free market at all.
4) Lastly, Ms. Rice made a simple
statement that I still agree with and it's something that drives me in my
everyday living. She said; "The class you're born into doesn't have to
determine the class you are as an adult, and ultimately, the one in which you
die." So true. Even with our problems, this country still allows us to be
the masters of our own universe, though not without struggle and hard work, but
that's okay. As bad as gets here, we still should be thankful that we don't
live in places like North Korea, where there is literally no hope or chance to
move out of the class you're born into, unless the state allows or facilitates
that (i.e. Olympic athletes). So Ms. Condoleezza Rice, thank you for your
positive thoughts and wisdom.
Now, here's where she went off the rocker,
at least in my opinion.
1). She literally called Putin an
"oppressive dictator" and compared the Russian annexation of Crimea
to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Wow. Really? Whether or not you believe that
the Crimean people's vote to become part of Russia was legitimate or not, the
fact remains that there was a vote. Saddam actually invaded with a full force
whose intent was to take over the country. Furthermore, in both instances, the West
drew the maps in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. So we only have ourselves
to blame for the all the turmoil and upheaval now happening in those parts of
the world. So let's try not getting involved for a change and see how
"letting nature take its course" plays out. Frankly, I don't see any
conflicts overseas threatening our way of life. Beyond insuring international
trade and commerce remains open, we have no business taking sides in foreign
conflicts.
2) Condi, who by the way has never been to
war, said; "If I were in charge, I would put a brigade in the Baltic
States to show Russia we are serious." Come on! How is Russia threatening
America here and why is it important for us to stop them? Please answer those
questions first, and then maybe I would consider foreign intervention providing
some utility for America. Is another conflict what America really needs right
now? Is more American money worth stifling Putin's ambition? Are more American
lives worth exerting American influence abroad? I think not.
Please comment and list your thoughts and
response to this, whether good or bad. I want to hear if these issues are of
concern to my peers, friends, and family. And if so, what are your
thoughts?
Until next time...stay conscious my
friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
If Condi Rice thinks that entitlements are the biggest problem in America then it sounds like she is just as clueless as when she was Secretary of State. Yes, I think you can still pick yourself up by your bootstraps in America, like some sort of Cirque de Soleil performer, but every study I've ever heard of says that most people aren't able to do that anymore. I think it's time like Republicans like Ms. Rice start examining other possibilities than "laziness" for why America is going down the toilet.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with your two points about Russia though.
Thanks for the input "adymdoe." I appreciate any comments. I also took a look at your blog. The letter to Boehner was a nice touch.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have a couple rebuttals to your comments. First, although I don't agree with Condi on foreign policy, I don't think she is "clueless" as you say. Entitlements are a huge problem. There is abundant academic research (not conservative think tank bullshit either) that shows that these entitlements actually hurt the people they are intended to help, meanwhile putting a financial burden on the country.
I think you can still "pick yourself up by your bootstraps in America." I actually know you can because I have done and so have the people closest to me. I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that the people from your school of thought think it should be easy and that you shouldn't have to struggle or sacrifice anything to get ahead and become successful or prosperous. Furthermore, you hate on the rich and the elites just because they don't have to face the same struggles as the rest of us or because they get access to better education due to their wealth. Wait until you have kids of your own. You'll want to give them a head start on other kids by putting them into better schools and by providing them with certain things. That's the way we climb the socioeconomic ladder. If we don't give our offspring more privilege every generation. Sure, the rich elites may be assholes and disconnected from average middle to lower class people, but so what. You'll be a better person because you had to work harder to get what you earned. And hopefully you'll be able to get your kids into a higher class and so on and so forth. The trick is for us, not the government, to take ownership of our problems. Teach our kids to not become rich assholes. Teach our kids to give to the needy. Teach our kids to be ethical. Taking money from the rich with the idea to give to the poor, but to ultimately be squandered by government waste and mismanagement is not the answer. Entitlements create a psychological viewpoint that it's the government's job to care for you when you get old or when you're poor. That's not the case.
Well I say Ms. Rice is clueless because she was gung ho in favor of invading Iraq and has been unrepentant since - an unforgivable offense in my book. Any jackass could have told you that invading Iraq was a mistake back in 2003.
ReplyDeleteLike you noted, Ms. Rice is not a combat veteran. She has been an academic, a college administrator, and a corporate executive. This type of background typically doesn't lead one to appreciate the perspective of a combat vet.
But similarly, nothing in her adult background suggests she could have a decent grasp of what someone currently on food stamps or SSDI is experiencing. When’s the last time she had to calculate whether she could afford groceries? When has she missed her rent or mortgage payment?
Regardless of her background though, I do think that her assumptions about entitlements are a case study in the fundamental attribution error (I made it rich, so you should be able to too). Her logic suggests a belief that you can advance your class in America if you try hard, therefore, if you take entitlements and you do not advance your class, you have not tried hard enough.
Surely some people who take entitlements do so fraudulently. Perhaps, like the research you refer to, taking entitlements can make you less financially independent. But to suggest that the entitlement problem is primarily due to laziness is intellectually bankrupt.
So are you suggesting that because she hasn't struggled financially in most of her adult life that her stance on entitlements is invalid? If we as Americans require first hand experience of anyone to have an opinion on issues, then we would never be able to elect any leaders. Do you know of any politicians, or anyone for that matter, who has been extremely poor, been to combat, started or managed a small business, worked in corporate America, been a healthcare provider of some sort, and dabbled in every other facet of life? I guess that is what you would expect of a public figure in order to be able to speak on issues.
DeleteI can tell you this from personal experience. I am the master of my own destiny, as are you. The outcome of our lives is totally up to us. What we are willing to sacrifice and how hard we are willing to work are a couple of the determining factors. I don't think Ms. Rice is against social welfare programs based on some of her published literature. She is against mismanaged entitlement programs at the federal level which are contributing to our horrible economic situation.
However, I don't know why I am defending Condi Rice right now. I don't want her as our president, nor do I think she would be the best option. I was just suggesting a strategic selection for the neocons. I personally feel that people, and/or communities are best governed at the lowest level possible. Personally, I think welfare and unemployment programs can be helpful, and best managed at the local level. When you get people in Washington, DC telling people in NYC, Houston, LA, etc... how to manage their problems, which all may be borne out of different circumstances, the one size fits all solution is bound to fail. Furthermore it's at the mandatory expense of all American taxpayers. To me, this is unacceptable.
Thanks again for your input. I respect and appreciate your interest and participation. I wish more Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, were more engaged in these issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your responses and your blog. Let's face it, many or most Americans don't care enough to investigate issues for themselves. Pathetic voting numbers attest to this. I respect people who have strong opinions that care enough to be informed.
ReplyDeleteIn your blog post, you mentioned that Condi has never been to war, which I took to imply that she has less of an understanding of war than someone who has. This is why I drew the comparison.
I guess I just want to add that what I disagree with most with conservatives on the entitlement issue has nothing to do with whether or not entitlements are a problem. I agree that they are. I just don't think it's fair to place the blame on the people who are taking them. I think that the problem is that broad sections of our economy and legal systems have been rigged to favor the rich and the powerful. If we don't address this, we'll never fix the entitlement problem. I think you are as much a product of your environment as you are a master of your own destiny.
Thanks again for your insightful thoughts on our country.