Ann Althouse Muses About Right vs. Left

This is a very interesting, thoughtful post. I, too, have wondered about the phenomenon: conservatives seem to be willing to engage a liberal's thinking, while liberals dismiss or label a conservative as not worth the time or energy to engage. Interestingly, though, my liberal professional friends are very tolerant of me! I think it is because they are older and figure (hope) I'll wise up someday.

Here's the thing: while I'm very conservative in some ways--national security, anti-abortion, small government (meaning that funding goes to essentially basic services not the extravagant services we have all come to enjoy as "necessary" government since the New Deal), pro-gun ownership, there are areas where I'm far more libertarian.

For example, I agree with guys like Chrisopher Hitchens about legalizing some drugs and encouraging developing countries like Afganistan in the legal cultivation of poppies for medical purposes. Big pharma and big farming both are inappropriately supported and coddled by the government. I think that the subsidies and government connections feeding each other are utterly corrupt. The new laws penalizing the common man for bankruptcy while allowing stupid industries like airlines off the hook for horrendous business plans strikes me as unfair. So no, GM should not be bailed out. No, churches should not be reimbursed for Katrina.

But see, I'm ready for radical solutions. The public schools aren't working? Let's clean house and try something crazy new, but the liberals I know seem far more interested in weirdly protectionistic positions based on out-dated reliance on unions. The union mentality penalizes kids and teachers, too. Many teachers would make far more money if the market were to open up--and yes, some would make deservedly less.

Also, the medical system is heavily subsidized. This drives up costs for the uninsured. The solution is not to insure everyone, in my opinion, since the government is notorious for turning beauty to shit, but to remove the subsidies. New imigrants who pay no taxes get free health care in Texas with the Gold Card. Yes, they have to wait two months to get in, but it's freer than what I pay and drives up everyone's costs. Universal health care? No health care: fee for service. That's why I agree with Bush's MSA idea. Some say it's cruel for poor people, but I think that insurance should be for big whopper problems, anyway. What incentive do people have to get well when being sick is subsidized?

I chafe at the amount of money being thrown at an AIDs vaccine when the common cold still has no vaccine and the HIV virus is infinitely more complex. I have kid with Autism and I would love for a solution, but you know what? State-mandated care is BS. Give me a tax break for finding a unique solution that fits my kid--that would be nice. But what about the poor people, you ask. Well, state-mandated solutions don't work for them, either. I went to school with government loans, but think they should be abolished. Let everyone pay cash and guess what? Costs come down and dedicated people would pay as they go (I know I still would have). It may sound old-fashioned but it is a better solution than the government getting their grubby paws on so many American's futures in the form of indebtedness.

Anyway, my opinions are not down the line anything. Certain principles lead me to certain conclusions. I understand where liberals come from and enjoy engaging in spirited debates about the best way to do this or that. It is disheartening to be discounted as a mindless rube because my philosophy about certain areas don't agree with a typically liberal position.