I was getting ready to leave for college (have to be on the road on about 10 hours) when a lovely lady from the GOP called my house and asked if I was voting for Bush. I responded absolutely not, and she asked for an explanation for my vote.
I basically said capitalism is inherently unstable because of wealth inequality. The welfare state causes capitalism to become more stable by re-distributing some wealth and lessening the anger of the poor. A capitalistic state without a welfare component will soon develop a welfare component or will suffer revolutions from the poor's anger about wealth inequality. I pointed out the late 19th century and early 20th century are both good evidence for my arguments. She countered by talking about the horrible conditions in Communist Russia, and she attributed these conditions to the welfare state. I countered that by saying that an active welfare state in Tzarist Russia would have prevented Lenin's revolution and stopped the horrors of Communist Russia. In debater speak, that would be "welfare state link turns Communist Russia DA - prevents biggest impact ever of dehumanization."
She talked about me being an idealistic college student (not for another 16 hours
) and presented gobs of anecdotes from here life as a nurse about how
both the welfare state destroys people's work ethic and it prevents workers from buying things they want because it gives them so little. I pointed out that those statements don't logically sync; she present more anedotes from her life. She spent at least ten minutes telling me about Horatio Alger stories from her life about people who have moved to the USA from China/Russia. She also said the are Chinese "much better than American's at math". I thought about being a PC bastard and calling racism, but I pretty much hate people who yell racism and are offended for
other people.
I ask why people in Sweden are the happiest people on Earth, and they have a health welfare system. She said that was true, but that their happiness was beginning to shift. She told me that happiness in socialist systems only lasts about ten years. I asked why don't we have socialism for ten years and then have a year or two of pure capitalism on a 12 year rotating cycle. That 12 year cycle of revolution would maximize happiness and would continue to work. She told me it was absurd to have a revolution every 12 years; I told her the people in South America seem to do it quite well.
At this point the debate seemed to be reaching stalemates based on basic ideological beliefs and (more importantly) my laundry was about to finish, and I wanted to end the debate. I fainted agreement on the welfare state issue and by extension taxes and regulation bad. My only final question was "Okay, taxes and regulations are bad - why not vote for the LP canidate since he is the most against taxes and regulations." She responded with the often seen "third parties are good but Kerry will win if you vote LP". I asked why it is better to vote for Republicans than vote LP and send a message which might cause a shift in Republican policy. She linked back into "Kerry will win" and I decided that this debate had basically reached a stalemate. I thanked her for her time and responded that despite her efforts; I was still going to vote for kerry since his welfare state prevents bloody revolution.
This discussion with a call center person gave me a good bit of insight. The first insight is that they REALLY don't have a good pre-written answer why economic conservatives shouldn't vote for the LP candidate. I also noticed that welfare state equals communism was a belief the woman strongly held. I wished that I had brought up Northern Europe more as an example where welfare makes a populace very happy. I'm half tempted to believe the book (I would bet money they are going from) suggests that welfare state equals Communist Russia.
That was my adventure will a GOP call center lady. I want to thank all the posters on this board for helping me keep up will politics and presenting political arguments from all perspective - some of which, I used in the discussion as evidence for my arguments, and some of which, I had to think of answers for if they come up in discussions.