Here's another good reason to have Sean Braisted back in the blogosphere: his excellent response to a piece written by Mr. Turnbow on why he left the Democratic Party.
« Dodge cars and downtown traffic | Main | Majority oppression in Memphis? »
January 03, 2008
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Braisted's piece is the triumph of naive youthful idealism untempered by actual experience over, well, actual experience like Mr. Turnbow draws on.
Mr. Turnbow experienced the soul-killing effect of liberal government-dependency programs, and he is also on target when he notes that Tennessee still has crappy schools after decades - DECADES - of Democratic control of state government.
Frankly, if I was a democrat I'd be embarrased that my party had been dominant control of state government for a century or more and the state still had crappy schools, still had 120,000 homes statewide that don't have access to a public water system, and still is at the bottom of far too many lists regarding education, health, etc.
Posted by: Bill Hobbs | January 03, 2008 at 10:33 AM
We agree that Tennessee needs better schools -- there's no doubt about that.
But Democrats and Republicans must share the blame with everyone -- Tennessee's schools are run by non-partisan school boards so unless you're suggesting that we politicize schools, you're off base.
And it would be better for us all to work toward better schools rather than making them political hockey pucks.
As for Mr. Turnbow's piece, Sean accurately noted when he began that the original piece was a personal story and that aspect of the situation should be respected.
Individual stories also make up what you call the "soul-killing" effect of government programs. They aren't different from the "soul-killing" effect of businesses that shutter their doors, putting life-long loyal workers on the street without a future. Or financial firms that rob people of their savings with the promise of new homes they can't afford.
At least the programs you refer to are intended to improve people's lives. They may not be perfect, but over time they have been improved to do the job they were intended to do.
Like help people who have been victims of factory closings or aid promising students who can't afford to go to college afford tuition via student loans.
Or help people who are victims of disasters, until agencies like FEMA are revamped by a Republican administration that doesn't feel much allegiance to the public that elected it.
Government isn't perfect, nor can it solve all of any individual's problems. It just comes down to whether you want government to set its goals on improving people's lives, or to transfer public money to the wealthy in hopes that some of it will make its way to the bottom.
Posted by: Jim Grinstead | January 03, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Democrat welfare programs have created multi-generation welfare-dependency among millions of people. That's hardly improving things as they go.
Posted by: Bill Hobbs | January 03, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Bill,
If you want something to blame for not having the best schools, or the best public infrastructure; blame conservatism. The truth is higher taxes pay for those things, we live in a lower taxed state, so Government services will be of lower quality...that is just the way it is.
You bash the corrosive influence government has out of one side of your mouth, and then bash it for not doing enough out of the other; make up your mind.
Posted by: Sean Braisted | January 03, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Bill, you need get better information. That old saw about welfare dependency has been debunked so many times.
Here's some recent data: http://www.brookings.edu/
articles/2006/0315welfare_haskins.aspx
Posted by: Jim Grinstead | January 03, 2008 at 04:36 PM