TruPolitics Podcast Episode 4: Social Responsibility; Race, class, and partisan politics; The 9/11 Mosque Debate
August 12, 2010 12 Comments
The fourth TruPolitics podcast episode. Episode 4 examines: Conservatism vs. Liberalism on care for the poor and social responsibility; The danger of race, class, and partisan politics; and the 9/11 Mosque Debate.
The best way to listen to the podcast is directly through iTunes. Search “TruPolitics” and hit “Subscribe.” Or, you can download by clicking the link below and hitting “save”:
TruPolitics Episode 4: Social Responsibility; Race, class and partisan politics; 9/11 Mosque
**Download and Subscribe through iTunes for the best sound quality**
Hey guys,
One thing you throw out there all the time (in this podcast and the last) is if people have more money, because of decreased taxes, they will spend it or they will donate it to charity. Although that seems to make sense, I’m not convinced its necessarily true. I feel that under many circumstances, people will either hoard their money or spend their money regardless of how much they are taxed. If a guy making millions wants to buy a boat, he probably will whether he’s getting taxed 20% or 50%. If I’m going to donate some money to charity, I’m gonna do it whether I’m getting 1500 or 2000 a paycheck. If you’re a frugal person, you probably aren’t going to spend all the “extra” money you get from tax cuts. I’m not trying to argue your points about lower taxes, I’m just not convinced that rich people getting tax cuts will help the poor in that direct manner, and that oh we lowered taxes so now the charities have enough money to help all the poor people.
Now those hot button issues you wanted people to comment on. Earlier today I made a comment and I said I didn’t want to talk about these cause I find the discussions get nowhere because they quickly become silly arguments. Anyway, here goes.
Immigration: At first the term lawful contact was quite ambiguous and the bill stated that race could be used as a reason to check somebody (just not the ONLY reason) so I can see why some didn’t approve of it. Now those parts have been edited to be more clear. I understand that people can be upset about the potential for racial profiling, picking people out based on race and finding a crime to see their status. It could be really tough on Mexican Americans if its not done properly (I wonder if any illegal immigrants from Europe are fleeing AZ?). But, I mean, illegal immigrants are here illegally … it’s a strong stance but if its handled properly I don’t have an issue with it. Maybe it should be easier to get here legally, and maybe there are other ways of handling it … if AZ stopped hiring illegals they wouldn’t be in this problem.
Mosque: I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. I understand the feelings of it being inappropriate but where do you draw the line? It’s not being built on the site and not even adjacent to the site. It’s two blocks away. What’s far enough? There is already a mosque four blocks away. Is that far enough? And also saying its not about the religion, may be true for you, but it’s absolutely not true for many people. I don’t know how you guys feel about Jon Stewert, but I would watch this video from his show. Take it for what it is.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/08/11/the-daily-show-on-the-latest-in-municipal-land-disputes/
Gay Marriage: Sorry, I have to disagree with you guys again. Really I can’t find a reason why people are against this. Ok yes, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. So … we also could own other people, and woman and black people couldn’t vote. It’s all saying, “you, as a minority group, cannot take part in this”. I don’t know if its a religious thing or what but to me, its absolutely the same thing. You guys are good people so honestly I would like to know. I personally find it to be one of the most hypocritical ideas of republicans. I mean I can be an adult of any age, race, religion, nationality and get married, but if I’m gay thats not acceptable. It simply does not make sense to me.
Dan,
What does a rich person “hoarding” their money look like? Do they put it under their pillow? It has to go somewhere, where can it go that won’t help the whole of society?
Secondly, not everyone in the highest tax bracket is a mega rich Bill Gates type, but its everyone making over 250k. So plenty of small business owners who file their business in their personal finances. Do you really this there won’t be some significant changes in lifestyle for a guy making a little over 250k if the tax rate is 20 or 50%? Do you really think it won’t affect how many people he’ll employ?
Third, taxes absolutely affect the way the rich spend. It has been proven how luxury taxes on items (say yachts) are made to further tax the rich without increasing taxes on the poor, however in every scenario the rich just change luxuries. This is a consistent pattern in economic history, which shows how taxes do indeed affect the way the rich spend money. You can also look at how mega-rich people in your own party (Kerry, Rangle) will do fraudulent and illegal things to prevent them from spending their millions in taxes, and from people who consistently argue about how good of a cause these taxes are going to, too!
I do want to point out that I do lean towards Dan’s position on the Mosque. Matt’s argument did pull me slightly toward their position (it was much better than Hannity complaining how the guy wants schools to give children off on Muslim holiday’s or his wanting the US to be Sharia compliant). I think that conservatives are getting away from our roots of looking for a more freedom loving philosophy. It seems that we’re taking a page out of the liberals’ book in complaining that our feelings are hurt and then appealing to regulating codes that we typically don’t really care for (not that we want to dismiss all regulatory codes). Overall, I think the guy’s scum, but our fussing will not be good for our long-term goals.
Lastly in regards to gay marriage, Dan, you of all people (because of your NJ residence) should remember your ex-govenor being both gay and married. Gay people can get married, just as McGreevey was, but a one man can’t marry another man. Some words have meaning inherent within them, and I personally don’t want to lose all meaning of words because some people want them to mean something different. Words have meaning, and are quite powerful because they are able convey crisp, clear ideas. When the foundation of what a word means is undermined, all of language (and the power beholden to it) evaporates. I, personally, do not think that the definition given to an event for all of recorded history should be changed because a few people decide they want it to. Why can’t there remain a distinction between the two events? Moreover, there would remain a distinction even if marriage was legal, because it will have the adjective “gay” placed antecendentally to “marriage.” Why then is the word “marriage” then so important? Why should then the whole of society change what a word means because 10% of the population wants it to be?
Should we then begin calling “ground beef”-”steak” so that lower income families can say they’re eating steak, or say McDonalds deserves a Michelin star?
A salient point from the Wall Street Journal today regarding the impact of the 2011 tax increases (if the Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire as President Obama had pushed for): “Raising the top income tax rates would increase taxes on small businesses that report profits as individuals. Higher income tax rates would raise taxes on 54% of Subchapter S small companies, 33% of sole proprietorships, and half of all small business income. Affected firms employ a quarter of all small business workers.”
And also a key point about economists’ and voters’ view of tax increases, again from the WSJ: “The Aug. 5-9 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported 71% of Americans favor extending the tax cuts for at least a year, while only 24% said permanently eliminating all the tax cuts was acceptable. The Wall Street Journal’s recent survey of 53 economists also found that only three supported allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, while 32 favored keeping them.”
As always, thanks for the feedback–good discussion. I want to answer a few of the objections/points.
Taxes: Dan, you are right that the rich tend not to spend all tax cuts. In fact, multiple studies have pointed out that society as a whole does not spend temporary tax cuts; they tend to use them to pay down debt (which is a good thing) or save/invest it. This was proven out with the recent Bush “stimulus tax cuts” and thus didn’t help to grow the economy. However, it has also been proven that permanent, long-term cuts to the marginal income tax rate lead to greater spending and a GDP growth. This was proven by the Alesina study I’ve referenced many times, and by the GDP growth during JFK and Reagan’s tax cuts (as noted by Arthuer Laffer and Associates). So, the solution should not be temporary tax cuts or credits, but instead permanent reductions in the tax rate. This makes sense, as such reductions will lead to lasting lifestyle changes, while temporary cuts tend to lead to short-term actions.
But, given all of that, I don’t want to miss the main point in this argument: The economy is a rising tide that carries all ships. What is best for the whole of the economy is also best for those who struggle or who are poor. Again, simply compare the quality of life in the United States to that of those in developing, communist or socialist regimes. And, it’s been proven time and time again that low government spending and low taxes grow an economy best.
On the Mosque, I must admit that this is a difficult issue for me as a conservative. But, this is an issue where I break from my Libertarian counterparts (who might favor total choice/freedom and no government intervention). As a conservative, I do believe there is a place for government and a place for certain forms of regulation. Specifically, being a local government official, I see the benefits of zoning time and time again. Cities and townships that don’t have proper zoning suffer from economic development and quality of life issues. To me, the Mosque is a zoning issue, and zoning can be decided on “appropriateness.” As I mentioned on the podcast, that concept is precisely why we don’t allow direct commercialization next to the Pearl Harbor monument, or 50,000 square foot WalMart shopping centers in the middle of housing developments. The point here is that this issue should not be framed as pro or anti-religious tolerance (as it is being framed on the Left). Rather, it should be framed on basic zoning concepts of appropriateness; a concept that officials on both sides of the aisle use all the time.
So, is it appropriate to have a massive mosque right next to Ground Zero? To me, that is the central question that must be answered. It’s not, as Mayor Bloomberg and others have said, about basic American religious freedom and tolerance. That is a straw man argument. I’m interested to know what you think about the analogy I used in the podcast of the swastika being placed on or next to a concentration camp monument in Germany. Would this be appropriate? Should a neo-Nazi worship center be allowed to be placed next to one of these monuments? I know the analogy isn’t perfect, and they retort will be “well you can’t compare Islam, a religion of peace, to Nazism.” And believe me, I get that, and that is not my intent. My intent is to show that we find it okay to rule on appropriateness in certain circumstances where we’ve deemed something abhorrent, but not in others. But what about tolerance for all? If you embrace the tolerance argument, this is a difficult question to answer.
First about the taxes. AJ, I think you missed my point on the tax comment … its ok it wasn’t a very good one anyway. Matt what you said makes sense.
The Mosque. First about zoning. I understand why we do it, I played Sim City, and I understand that we don’t want to clutter up a memorial like Pearl Harbor with commercialized items, but thats not what’s going on here. I know you said you analogy isn’t perfect, so I don’t want to attack that, but … its more than just Islam is a religion of peace or whatever. I’ll respond with my own imperfect analogy, Would you say a Church shouldn’t be built two blocks away from the Oklahoma City bombing site? Or let’s say you could have commercial buildings around pearl harbor (like the wtc) would it be ok to ban a Japanese supermarket? You’re analogy shows that we draw the line somewhere and we don’t tolerate everything (nazism, racial slurs, etc), I think not allowing the Mosque (TWO blocks away) is clearly crossing that line by a long shot.
And AJ, I find it ironic that in a paragraph discussing the word ‘gay’ you’re argument is based solely on the fact that definitions of words don’t change. Sorry, your argument did not help. Does the word “voting” give you a crisp, clear idea of only white men performing that act? Probably not … words do change definition. Anything else?
Dan,
On the mosque, you make a strong argument, and a very good point (specifically in your last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph). On the OK City site argument, which I have heard many times now, it needs to be noted that this is quite different. Timothy McVeigh did not attack the building out of an explicit command from his religion, nor did he claim as much. 9/11, by contrast, was executed as a directive of radical Islam, so a Mosque on that site takes a much different tone than a church at the OK City site.
However, your point about where we draw the line is a strong point. In the end, I think we can both agree that there is a line to be drawn when it comes to the zoning concept of appropriateness. On where that line is drawn, however, we might continue to disagree. But, I must admit I’m not adament in my views on this one, and you’ve taken me closer to the other side. Having direct local zoning experience, I’m acutely aware of the importance of local opinion and representation. That being said, if the local community finds this inappropriate and offensive because of its location, I find it perfectly Constitutional and reasonable for the local zoning board to request the mosque be built elsewhere. On a side note, I also have questions of the Muslim community with regard to sensitivity on this issue. If their aim is to integrate into the community, promote peace, and attract others to their religion, why not simply hear the painful cries of victems’ families and move the mosque? It feels like they’re simply trying to make a statement.
Saw the Oklahoma City comment coming. Fair enough. As we have both noted, it is quite a unique situation. I also see your point, people complain about everything moving into their town. I would feel for the argument a little more perhaps if it was on the site (never would happen) or directly overlooking the site (now that would be interesting). But down the street and around the corner, I’m not so sure that still counts.
I heard (don’t remember where) that the Muslim community is overcrowded in that area and other Mosques, Islamic centers, etc have to turn people away. I imagine real estate in NYC isn’t very easy to come by, so I don’t think just move away is practical for this situation. I’m sure their intentions are good, and honestly, if I was in their shoes, I would be kinda pissed at the extreme outcry, they didn’t do anything wrong.
Also there are so many Muslim people in that area. Is it inappropriate for them to be around that area, expressing their Muslim culture through clothing etc? My guess is that you would say that is not inappropriate, then why is having a place of worship there inappropriate?
So I wrote that last part (on gay marriage) quickly before running to the office and I thought it could have come across as a little rude. Not my intention. I wanted to expand on my thoughts though.
Since you are against gay marriage (by the way the gay part would be dropped once we didn’t have to define it anymore), are you for civil unions so that gay people can be with their loved ones and still get the exact same legal benefits? If you against them, why can’t they have those benefits too? If you are for them, why does it have to be separate? What’s the point of having two of the exact same thing, but one doesn’t include a group of people? Sounds similar to separate but equal to me. Do you feel it threatens your marriage in anyway? I don’t see how you could be tolerant of gay people and see them as a threat at the same time.
Sorry to jump in so late, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share(sorry this is a bit long-winded and somewhat clunky)….
On the issue of the mosque – A lot of this comes down to discernment. Are we as a society permitted to see right and wrong? Should organizations proclaiming their interest in unity and community service listen to and respect the community they wish to impact positively? To add another to the seeming glut of imperfect analogies consider this hypothetical: A boston preist has molested boys for many years and over that time eventually recruited confidants and other priests with the same detestable penchant. As time went along and their numbers grew they were emboldened to purchase property where they could take young boys in secret. Eventually this practice came to light and a stand off with authorities occurs at the property with a dozen or so boys held hostage. The situation tragically ends in the massacre of priests and boys in a fire started by one of the priests. Years later the local diocese decides to purchase the same land to raise a new church/community center. Appropriate or not? Outcry justified or not? Families considered or trampled? Obviously there are some differences, especially in that the niether the church nor the bible promotes or sanctions these horrible crimes. However, can you even imagine the church being so boneheaded as to try something this abrasive? I have no particular love for the catholic church, but I can’t imagine them doing this. And I have no doubt the media would explode in opposition to such blatant disregard for the community.
On gay marriage – I largely agree with AJ. Though I appreciate the rheorical trick of equating the differing uses of the word ‘gay’ with the attempt to fundamentally change the definition of marriage as an institution, I can’t agree with your overall point. There are almost too many inconsistencies to count in the ‘pro gay marriage’ position, but I’ll try to touch on a few. Generally speaking those on the left are more likely to support gay marriage. They are also generally more likely to have faith in the theory of evolution. I have yet to hear any defense of the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality or the promotion thereof. Also, many leaders within the gay community have over the years come out against gay marriage and wondered at the hypocrisy of those pushing for it. They point out that homosexuality is a counterculture movement, not a mainstream one, and as such they should be developing their own customs instead of begging for, borrowing and parrotting societal norms as their own. People with this point of view have included Harvey Milk and Elton John among others. What is your answer to this line of thinking? Dan, you are not alone in your incredulity over anyone’s lack of support for gay marriage. This is curious to me. It seems that the left is slowly but steadily assuming a position of arbiter of moral legitimacy. As a Christian and a realist I believe in absolutes. I believe in right and wrong and believe that God clearly tells us what that means. When I site my God and his word as reason that murder, stealing, lying, or adultery are wrong, noone bats an eye. If, from this same standard for morality, I ascertain that homosexuality is also wrong, I am suddenly a bigot and way off base. Let me be clear. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that lying and drunkeness are wrong. Am I to judge anyone more harshly based on some sort of sliding scale of graded sins? Certainly not! A sin is a sin is a sin. A person crosses over from morally aware to bigotted when they somehow discount a person’s humanity or value based on something like homosexuality. I am an equal in transgressions with any man alive no matter the name of the sin. But I must still call a spade a spade. If something is wrong I will not exalt it because it is vogue to do so. You might respond by saying ‘you are discounting their humanity by not letting them marry’. To which I would respond, “Not in the slightest” What I am doing is including them in society as we have all agreed it is structured. I am saying you are no more important or favored than any man, and as such must make your way in the world as any other does, abiding by certain customs and rules as you see fit and spurning them when you choose as well. What I am not saying is, ‘here is a class of weak and oppressed people in need of redefining all of society for their comfort and self-esteem’s sake’.
Late comments are still always welcome.
As for doing what the community wants …. the community is quite split. The initial polls had ‘against the mosque’ as being stronger, but I don’t think everybody really knew all of the facts then. Plus, I don’t believe just because the majority thinks it, it automatically becomes correct. Anyway, I completely agree with you on the second part. Thats why a mosque shouldn’t be built on ground zero … nobody is building a mosque on ground zero though. That makes it completely different in my opinion.
I started to make some comments about the gay marriage, but I realize now its pointless due to our largely different beliefs and backgrounds. I understand that much of my moral background is created from religion, even if I’m not religious, but God’s word is not my basis for morality. Sorry, I understand religion is used for many great things in this world, but I will never accept it as a reason to judge others. Thus nearly all of your points mean nothing to me and we will never see eye to eye.
PS I am curious as to how drunk you have to be for it to count as a sin?