Oh, I’d never call you a conservative. I’m pretty sure you can beat me up. But I also think you’re not as liberal as you think you are.

Industry supports our national purpose all the time - just not always willingly. Say the US government has decided our national purpose (in the guise of foreign policy) requires us to provide arms to a friendly regime so they can defend themselves against a larger, richer, unfriendly neighbor. Arms manufacturers would much rather sell their products to the richer nation. (Actually they’d like to sell to both, but that’s a risky game.)

The government handles this situation by making it illegal to sell arms to certain nations and providing foreign aid to others, with the stipulation that the aid money be spent on US products. Eventually it flows back to the US arms manufacturers. But to get that money (and not go to prison along the way) the manufacturers have to accept government interference in the market, and also have to accept the price offered (and a level of profit approved by the government - federal contracts require full disclosue of all costs) for the goods they deliver.

We make these convoluted deals because contrary to what the partisans say, the government is trying to support both domestic business and international allies.

Dave

:D

If industry did anything in particular for our “national purpose"–whatever that is–I might decide that the government should provide “subsidies,” but I’d see that as the government basically being a paying customer. As it stands, though, I can’t make such a connection.

Am I missing something?

d

I think the ultra-conservative view of subsidies is the last answer - no government interference of any kind with business. Accepting help from the government is a variation of welfare, and it comes with strings attached. Government money is never free.

The liberal answer would be the first one, about an Industrial Policy. That would have the government establish goals and methods which industry would follow to achieve the “national purpose.” It’s not about helping industry, it’s about making industry better able to help the state. (The People’s Republic of China comes to mind as an example.)

Dave

The subsidies question was phrased like this:

The government has spent billions and consumers billions more to help out certain favored industries such as farms, textile mills, steel companies and so on. Should the government help certain “important” industries using subsidies, quotas, and/or tariffs?

Choices were these:

Yes! It is high time that the US implement an Industrial Policy, guiding industries to our national purpose.
Yes. The Freedom to Farm act and free trade with Mexico have hurt too many workers. Repeal them.
Some. The current amount of support for distressed industries is about right.
No. Subsidies keep inefficient industries in this country keeping us poorer in the long run. Limit subsidies to help out in short term crises only.
NO! Giving taxpayer money to favored industries is theft, pure and simple! Eliminate all subsidies, quotas and protective tariffs.

This particular question doesn’t include things like medicare and old age pensions and such. It’s about helping out industry. I figured the far left would say no under any circumstances. I’m not quite that liberal, I guess.

I voted for limited subsidies in times of crisis only (in reality). I’m not sure about that, though. Our government subsidizes fuel, for instance, and I think that if they’d just stop doing that, our air pollution and energy waste would solve itself. Suddenly, we’ve be VERY invested in developing alternative fuels, as well as investing in cross-country mass transportation systems. I don’t see a good reason we need to subsidize most industries. Farmers, I think sometimes, such as during droughts and such. But most of the time, I don’t see a need but I see ample opportunity for corruption in the system.

d

Diana, you mentioned saying no to government subsidies to get to the far liberal designation in the quiz but, IMO, these subsidies are part of the picture in a social democracy. Also, in Saskatchewan where I grew up, we had tests in social studies on the difference between socialism and communism, BIG differences, probably because we had the first socialist government in North America. In Canada, socialism is not a bad word and liberal (with a big L) is the name of our middle of the road political party. The right wingers are called Conservatives and the left wing party, The New Democratic Party or usually just the NDP. They are the socialists without whom we would not have medicare, universal old age pension, baby bonuses and a number of other perks of being Canadian. Interestingly enough, it was the middle of the road party that got us into so much debt nationally in the 70s and 80s. The NDP have never been in power nationally but they have held the balance of power when we have had a minority government. We currently have a more right wing federal government than we have had in quite some time. Interesting times.

L.

I went the other way to see if I could corner the conservative market, so to speak. It was easier than trying to get to the liberal corner, which worries me a little bit (grin).

I noticed that whoever wrote that site uses the term socialist, but not fascist - just radical conservative. I wonder if that’s because fascism is so closely associated with Nazi Germany. I don’t know about you, but it really annoys me when a perfectly good word is rendered unusable because of public opinion.

Dave

Of course, that isn’t my opinion at all. I was just testing to see what i would take. :)

d

Thank you for the recommendations. For some things I like the Toronto Globe and Mail, although for some reason they editorialize on events in Washington kind of a lot. (grin) I think you’re right about some of our foreign policies, but you have to admit that’s a complicated field. Dealing with a nation’s government and dealing with its people are two very different things, sometimes mutually exclusive.

Diana,

Can you say “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and mean it sincerely? I suspect that’s what it’d take to max out your liberal score. You don’t seem as liberal to me as some people I’ve known. You work for what you have and expect others to also, if they’re able. You also seem like a law-abiding type - you know where your rights end and the next person’s begin. From looking at the axes on that graph I’d say we’d both have to stump for more personal freedom (to the point of infringing on our neighbors, who are free to infringe back) and less economic freedom (take what we’re given and like it) to become radical liberals.

Dave