Centerfield

In my local work I see a lot of that, Rick. Liberals tend to want to treat every symptom, but generally ignore the disease. Conservatives want to leave the disease alone, and let nature take its course. Centrists generally want to figure out if there's anything to do about the disease, while providing some minimal treatment of symptoms.

Like all analogies that one's flawed and overly general, of course, but you get the idea.

Your generalization is valid (although still a generalization). Indeed, the left believes that we have an obligation to help. The right believes that there is a certain justice in the natural order that leaves some with more than others and trying to muck with that simply makes matters worse.

(Before everone piles on -- I, too, am generalizing for the purpose of discussion.)

One issue I see dividing the left and right on many economic issues is the concept of what constitutes equal opportunity.

The right tends to view opportunity as the absence of restraints. In that view, everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed because 'anyone' can advance themselves. No one will stop them. (Thus the poor and the rich alike have 'equal' opportunity.)

The left sees equal opportunity as a leveling of the playing field, thus providing 'help' to those less able to make economic progress.

(It's an interesting exercise to listen to political rhetoric and see which of the above assumptions 'fit'. Usually only one will.)

Thus, borrowing from the common saying about how to help a man who is hungry:

- The right asks who is keeping the man from fishing for his own food. No one? Then what's the problem? ("Get a job!")

- The left wants to feed the man because he is hungry. ("Hey, we can and should help.")

Of course, as the saying goes, the real solution is to teach the man to fish. I would add that we also should make sure he doesn't starve first.

Good topic, Rick.

The right starts a private program to teach fishing to the poor. The left starts a massive poverty fish-supply progrtam. The rest of us say, "Hey, let's go fishing..."

I like it.

I have to defend liberals a bit even though I don't consider myself one. (I'm a moderate like everyone else!) I think liberals have changed over the years. First, liberalism has changed. What is liberal today was not necessarily liberal in 1968. I suspect Kerry would have been considered a conservative in the 1960s if he espoused the same positions. The idea that liberals would be criticizing the Republicans for large deficits sort of turns the traditional relationship around. But I don't think liberals really think that it's only the thought the counts. I think most now realize that, to be effective, programs have to be focused on results.

Plus there are liberals and there are liberals. Is The New Republic the same as The Nation? I don't think so. There are liberals that believe in foreign intervention and others that don't. Certainly, there are still plenty of "old-style" liberals that hew the party line on everything, but they don't really control the Democratic Party, IMHO, even though a lot seem to have unfortunately embraced Michael Moore.