Depends on what one means by “liberal”. At one time I was considered very liberal. Most would now consider me conservative. And I haven’t changed my views to speak of, except that I have paid more attention to the Popes’ Social Encyclicals since then.
I consider our treatment of the most needy; the disabled needy who can’t help themselves, to be shabby, shameful and unbecoming the whole nation; perhaps most shameful to “liberals” who do absolutely nothing to improve their lot, and have nothing for them now, notwithstanding their throwing trillions around.
On the other hand, I do have problems with those living on SSD who can work but, due to the weaknesses of the sytem, don’t. I know a guy who works every day as an independent contractor, but has people pay his wife because he is on disability. He’s not the only one, by a long way.
I have very serious problems with “healthcare reform” that includes abortion, cost increases for working people, and nothing whatever to combat the overutilization that I know for a fact causes both insurance and health costs themselves to be higher than they need to be.
I am ashamed that this country, which has excellent healthcare facilities and educational systems, nevertheless requires that aspiring doctors borrow from $100,000 to $300,000 just to get through medical school. How is that conducive to the public good? How can this government fail to pay those costs if, say, the recipients of free tuition spend a couple of years in an underserved area? Why can’t the government defund some of the more stupid contributions it makes to the bloated educational system and fund expansion of medical and nursing schools?
On the other hand, if there are people who are truly involuntarily without coverage because they truly can’t afford it, I fail to see why all of this fuss about healthcare reform can’t simply target those people alone. It seems to me the only decent thing to do.
I have very serious issues with racking up deficits so huge they almost guarantee that people will not be able to afford families in the future. I get very angry that almost everything the government does discourages families from acquiring productive assets with which they could help themselves; something mightily encouraged by the social encyclicals.
I am astounded that this government can cause outrageous scandals like FNMA and FHLMC, and bail out companies that invested in their fraudulent securities with subsidies, yet refuse to subsidize student loan interest the way it did years ago.
And I oppose abortion on demand with every fiber of my being.
What does it mean to be “liberal” then? To follow the Democrat party line, as I did for years, or to consider carefully what the Church actually teaches and opt for measures that are truly humane and which might actually help the less fortunate?
And, is it “conservative” to worship “the market” as if it was some kind of god? Perhaps “conservatives” would do more to preserve the families they purport to espouse if they recognized that there are times when the government simply must intervene in the marketplace; like paying for medical educations, for example, instead of insisting that people self-finance, or regulating the funds that caused oil to go to $140/barrel two summers ago for absolutely no good reason at all except that speculators made money going up and coming back down.
As Catholics, I think we need to follow another way. But for sure, we should never support a politician who supports abortion. Not even one of them. If the abortion supporters don’t get our votes by promising us material things, they’ll change. But as long as we keep them where they are, and let them buy us off, they’ll keep the slaughter going unabated.
