American values

[pamsback]

These two articles are an answer to a comment that seemed to infer I was attacking basic American values on my last rant. I wasn't attacking anything, I was observing that they had gotten twisted and contorted into MONEY being God.
I don't believe in a welfare state, I don't believe money is evil,....Sometimes people do evil THINGS with it but that is on them,
I believe there is a limit where "profit" becomes obcene and gluttonous at the expense of other people
I believe in FREEDOM and the RIGHT to have and bear arms........for everybody not one side or the other
....I DON'T believe this has to be an either/or country
.......I think FDRs second bill of rights was a good thing
.....I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I believe in hard work..I been doin it all my life...because I LIKE it not because it's the only thing I was CAPABLE of doing with my life or COULD do NOW for that matter.
Believing there is a need for more fairness and balance in this thing called capitolism does not mean I am attacking our basic values...it means I believe we as a people could be BETTER than we are. Me included

American Values 
by Guy Reel
 
What is America? What are the values it has most fought for and admired? A few of the first, and most important, come to mind:
Freedom. Equality. Democracy. Champion of the little guy. Helper of the oppressed. Defender against tyranny.

Some of the other values are ingrained in our history and our belief in our future:

Capitalism. Independence. Strength. Rightness and righteousness. Manifest destiny. God. Freedom of religion. Family. Wealth.Faith.
Entertainment and happiness.

Even a casual reader of these values can see where conflicts might arise among them. Capitalism and strength have made America great, but they have generated their own set of inequalities. Our wealth is unequaled, but Jesus taught that our faith should make wealth meaningless. Equality is a wonderful ideal, but frankly, not everyone is created equal. Freedom is fine until we see our vast money-obsessed entertainment and happiness apparatus assaulting us with base immorality, cowardly news, and stupidity.

Over the last twenty years or so, the most radical members of the right wing have claimed they've owned the core American values that I've just enumerated; moreover, they've claimed that liberals have tried to defeat them. Therefore, they argue, liberals are trying to ruin the American way of life. They claim that liberals are a threat to our very future. For those who question this assumption, they need only to listen to talk radio, Fox news and the Republican leadership who pass for responsible voices in our democracy.

Their methods are not surprising. Because here is their dirty little secret: The far right must gain its identity from imagined enemies. Because without these imagined enemies, the ultra-right wing is not viable. Without the imagined enemies, you just have - America. It is an America struggling with competing interests among its core values. It should try to help the poor while building wealth for us all; it should try to lead the world without exploiting or dominating it; it should not be ashamed of a faith in God but should never discriminate against those of different beliefs; and it should try to figure out balances between those "right and left" policy disputes, such as protection of the environment versus encouraging development.

This is the true American value: We are a nation of compromises. The Constitution is a document of concessions between competing interests. We weigh the right of the accused against the power of prosecutors; we weigh the power of judges against Congress and the president; we weigh the power of the people against the strength of the government.

Yet this is the problem with the right wing today. When a political faction encourages an atmosphere that makes these competing principles evil and corrupt - even the idea that there should be competition among them - it threatens the very essence of America. It must be said outright: These strange Americans are fighting against the founding values of this nation.

The radical reactionaries (it is absurd to call them conservatives) have convinced about half of Americans that the basic American values - the values of balancing various competing interests - are evil and anti-American. This is where the future of America is threatened, and it must be fought at every turn.

What we have seen is the creation of a culture of hate in America, and that is not too strong of a characterization. The radicals vilify those who disagree with them -they must do this to survive. For without the enemies that they themselves imagine, they are nothing. After the imagined enemies are gone, they have nothing to rant against, except the notion of American values. Therefore, if they lose their enemies, they lose America.

America is a balancing act. Sometimes we slip off the wire. No one said it would be easy. No one said it was simple. It's a work in progress, and it always will be. The danger to America is when we allow those who vilify basic American values to have the loudest voices.

Guy Reel is an assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University.


FDR gave us "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

[Varmit]

That "Guy" is full of crap.  And FDR's bill of rights is nothing short of socialism.  Not only that but he contridicts himself.  "We" have to provide for those who have too little when "they" have a right to a decent job???  "...freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad."  Here he is talking about implentation of regulations on a global scale, thus dissolving our sovernity through global governance.  Somehow, allowing a foregin government to dictate how we run our country seems un-american to me.

[pamsback]

 There are things in his article I don't agree with either....I used it because of the parts about compromise and balance being core American values.
He WAS wrong about one thing tho...he should have included radical far LEFT when he was talking about what is going to destroy our future more than anythng. Far right or left either one will never work because they BOTH want to own the whole enchilada.

I also don't agree that manifest destiny, rightousness, and wealth accumulation are core American values....those are more in the line of core vices.

jobs and living wage were PART of the "WE" providing for the "THEY" We ARE the they...........
global governance is not the purpose. Global governance will never be possible or acceptable to anybody.

I'm not surprised you didn't like it. Everybody liking it was not the point.

[pamsback]

Be back later   

[Anmar]

That "Guy" is full of crap.  And FDR's bill of rights is nothing short of socialism.  Not only that but he contridicts himself.  "We" have to provide for those who have too little when "they" have a right to a decent job???  "...freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad."  Here he is talking about implentation of regulations on a global scale, thus dissolving our sovernity through global governance.  Somehow, allowing a foregin government to dictate how we run our country seems un-american to me.

That guy actually hit the nail on the head imo.

As far as FDR's bill of rights, it has nothing to do with socialism.  It's about giving people the opportunity to succeed.  It's saying that people have the right of upwards mobilitiy within society.  There is absolutly nothing socialist about that.  In fact it's quite the opposite.

With regards to dissolving soveriegnty, i think you may have misunderstood the statement.  I see it as fighting against monopolies and unfair trade tariffs.  For example, we can't sell beef in a lot of other countries because they place such high tariffs in American Beef.  This means that our farmers aren't competitive and don't have access to foreign markets, yet we allow those same countries to have unfettered access to ours.  This is about trade practices and treaties between governments, not a soveriegnty issue.

[pamsback]

With regards to dissolving soveriegnty, i think you may have misunderstood the statement.  I see it as fighting against monopolies and unfair trade tariffs.  For example, we can't sell beef in a lot of other countries because they place such high tariffs in American Beef.  This means that our farmers aren't competitive and don't have access to foreign markets, yet we allow those same countries to have unfettered access to ours.  This is about trade practices and treaties between governments, not a soveriegnty issue.

Exactly

[Varmit]

FDR gave us "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

What about the Rights of business owners to hire whom they want, based on whatever criteria they want, afterall, it is their business, not the gov'ts.  Also, it is not the gov'ts place to tell business owners how much to pay their employees.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

Who defines what is adequate when it comes to recreation? 

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

The markets and those little things like supply and demand should deteremine at what price produce is sold for.  Thats captialism.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

Unfair competition???  Who gets to decide what is unfair?  Whatever happened to developing a superior product and marketing it, or innovation? 

"The right of every family to a decent home.

That is fine so long as it doesn't imply ownership of a home.  Simply put, you don' t have a right to own a home if you can't afford it.  You may have to settle for just renting. 

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

I agree, so long as the bill isn't put on others backs. 

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

If they have a job, then they have this already.  If they are too foolish to save for old age, sickness, whatever, that is on them.  It is not the responsibilty of taxpayers to carry them.  When mandated by the gov't to do so, such programs are nothing more than gov't sanctioned theft. 

"The right to a good education."

Who gets to define what is "good education"?  And how far do we take it? 

We all have the same opportunity to succeed in America without the gov't saying that we must provide to those less fortunate.  Our determination, hardwork, innovation determines what we make of ourselves.  If a person is not motivated enough to better their station in life then they have no right to complain about it.  I remember a little piece from a movie that I think applies,

"Young men, who don't know how to do any kind of business, or have no enegry or application should stay at home, where they can be cared for.  They are not wanted here, and will only come to grief.  But men of enterprise are practically sure of sucess."

[redcliffsw]

A better title for that article should have been something like
"Reaching Our Socialist Goals in America thru Compromise",
instead of American Values.

Nowdays, there are many who want the USA to be like the other nations.
One can tell it just by reading this forum.  But, the USA was formed not to
be like the other nations and that's the way it ought to be.

[dnalexander]

Under the Constitution the federal government had very few obligations. Among those they do have is to protect their citizens and to regulate commerce. While we may not agree on what that encompasses our founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances. The founding fathers took that into account. Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme court. If you don't like it there is a process to amend the constitution.  Many things are not defined in the Constitution or are ambiguous. Some people say that is not what the founding fathers meant. To determine what they meant are you using your dictionary and ideas or are you using one that was in effect during their era. In fact even they did not agree and the Constitution is just a compromise among a wide variety of ideas. Many of them had slaves and that is just wrong and in violation of the whole life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thing. In fact many of our founding fathers were not American, which is just a technical play on words. Also, there is no national government that is truly democratic, socialist, communist, or anarchist (I think I covered the whole spectrum). I am just posing some of the many philosophical arguments and playing devils advocate in other cases. Maybe some of you will expand your knowledge about US history, Constitution, etc. I know I will because of the comments that will come due to my post.

David

[redcliffsw]

David, you should note that slavery was legal even though you say
it is wrong.  Back then, the income tax was never legal until about fifty (50) years
years after the slaves were freed in the north, the sixteenth (16th) Amendment
was passed to take your earnings from your work and labor (to distribute it elsewhere).
Of course, it appears that your future earnings have been mortgaged to distribute even
more than you are paying in.  It's guys like Ted Kennedy who have taken credit for
"helping the poor" except it was with your money.

The USA had greater freedoms before the socialists began messing-up this
country and it's those greater freedoms that black folks deserve.