Lies! Damned Lies! Statistics!

The Foreign Minister has cast aspersions on my honor. Don’t think I’m not keeping track, my friend. When the great cabbage shortage arrives, guess who won’t be sharing…

To save our dear reader(s?) from having to trackback to the archives, the calumny is reprinted here:

If the M of A could have read these (his own!) post 10 years ago when we were in college together he would not believe this stuff came from his own pen! Egad! You are turning in to quite the conservative republican friend. The last hurdle is coming to the realization that your neighbors don’t need to be taxed heavily and your are IN!

I’m not sure how much I have actually changed since college. Are you referring to my newfound appreciation of the rifle as a farm tool? If you will recall, even when baited by your friends who were, let’s be honest, not just gun nuts but raving weaponry lunatics, I never argued for a blanket ban on firearms. I simply wanted to move the debate to a discussion of how to reasonably control the negative effects of gun ownership (accidents, drive-by-shootings, etc.) and away from the fallacious argument that the “Well-regulated” line in the Second Amendment doesn’t exist.

Perhaps you are referring to my support of a strong foreign policy. I’m not sure if foreign policy can be characterized as conservatism; many conservatives like the ML’s buddy Buchanan are rank isolationists.

Was it my condemnation of government subsidies in agriculture? I am not opposed to all subsidies – I believe the government should interfere in the economy when it is beneficial to the public weal. Agricultural subsidies benefit neither the public nor family farms. Instead, they are a form of corporate welfare. I do differ from traditional liberals in that government interference is not a universal solution. Of course, conservatives are often hostile to government intervention of any sort. I’m in the middle ground. The ML has pointed out, and upon reflection I agree, that I have become increasing skeptical of the effectiveness of individual public programs.

And, good Lord, I’m certainly no conservative Republican on social issues. My reading of the Bible doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that abortion is murder. I don’t want some gummint bue-ro-cat writin’ no prayers for my daughter. I think evolution ought to be taught in schools without the pseudo-“science” of creationism. I want gays to have the same rights as the rest of us. I support (with some caveats) (properly applied) affirmative action (in the short term). I think what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody’s business.

And taxes. I support progressive taxation. Not only do the rich benefit disproportionately from the stable society produced by government action, they have a higher level of post-maintenance income. We are on the left, not the right of the Laffer curve. Furthermore, the rich actually benefit from paying taxes. Would you rather be a taxed rich person in America or an untaxed rich person in the Philippines? I don’t support a nanny state for non-workers, but the rich do benefit from having an educated work force and a prosperous consumer base that is only possible if the greatest number of people have a place in society.

And sure, I criticize the snot out of the Democratic Party. They deserve it. Many of my colleagues on the left are just plain ignorant and misguided. Others may have less sanguine intentions. I was happy to see the Maximum Leader criticize his party. If party members don’t work for change from within, then both parties will be adrift.

Repeat after me: Effective government action can improve the lives of the people. Taxes that improve the nation are good investments for everyone. Some foreign dictators need to be dead. There. Feel better? Join the progressives, my friend.

Smallholder