The social liberal in me is concerned with the needs of people. The goal is a happy, healthy, well-educated, prosperous populace. This involves the elimination of poverty, which will go a very long way toward reducing if not entirely eliminating crime, and it would provide the solution to the vast majority of problems this society is heir to. This is well within the means of a rich country like the United States. In fact, if we don't know how to go about it, we could swallow our pride in our so-called "Yankee ingenuity," put aside our prejudices against various "isms," and learn from several European countries who have come very close to achieving this goal. Much closer than we have.

My "inner fiscal conservative" would be careful in the use the available funds, targeting it wisely and efficiently, and not allowing it to be consumed by the administrative costs of massive bureaucracies.

One is moral principle. The other is practical implementation.

Okay! I hear you screaming "Socialism!" But try to get off that hackneyed continuum. Unclench your teeth and try to think in terms of worthwhile goals, the obstacles to those goals, and solutions for those obstacles. First, ask yourself if the welfare (yes, dammit, welfare!) of the nation's citizens isn't a matter of primary importance. The Constitution (the supreme law of the land, and the clear statement of the principles this country claims to live by) says that it is. It's one of the mandated duties of the government to promote the welfare of its citizens. Not just the CEOs, not just the corporations, not just the wealthy, but all of its citizens.

You see, my conservatism centers on trying to bring the stated dreams of this nation's Founding Fathers into fruition—to see those ideals become a reality. And I firmly believe that this is possible. Not bloody likely the way things are going, but possible. Most of this nation's problems—crime, drug use, unemployment, homelessness [even when employed], inadequate education, inadequate health care for millions, the list goes on and on—could easily be solved if we really cared to, and if the government were really responsive to the concerns of the people, not just a few favored special-interest groups. That these conditions exist in the richest, most powerful nation in the world is a testament to the moral and ethical state of that nation. It's been said that a people's moral fiber is demonstrated by its treatment of its weakest members. How are we doing? Not very well!

All right, then. I do not consider myself a Socialist. But, I ask—what is wrong with a little "socialism" if it leads to that happy, healthy, well-educated, prosperous citizenry that we say we would like to see? With that as the end result, I don't see the harm in pissing off a few hard-nosed right-wingers in the process.

At the same time, if, instead of trying to enforce "democracy" on recalcitrant nations at the point of a gun, we used a small percentage of our defense budget to alleviate poverty, misery, and ignorance in the rest of the world (with no strings attached, by the way; just because it's the right thing to do) it would go a mighty long way toward eliminating the roots of terrorism, spread a lot of good-will around the world, and may—just may—even lead eventually to world peace and prosperity.

Ah! But that might not be profitable, would it? Well—in the long run, of course it would be highly profitable. But it wouldn't help this next fiscal quarter's bottom line!

As the dominant species on this planet, what is our ultimate goal? What the hell are we here for?

Don Firth