by D. Ray Morton
While what follows might be spurred on from my childlike sense of idealism brought on by my joining in on Lauren’s second marathon viewing of the whole series of “West Wing” , I still feel like I’ve been thinking about this for awhile and need to get it out. The latest I guess is that Senate Democrats are soon to be dropping the plan they had put forth to lower the Medicare age requirement from 65 to 55. This was of course after they decided a pussy version of the public option was too hard to pass, which of course was after they decided a REAL public option was too hard to pass. I swear to god I’m running out of metaphors to illustrate how toothless the Democrats are. They are caving on everything, and it’s beginning to look alot like the plot of a bad movie where everyone leaves the theater muttering “There is no way people actually act like that.” To put it another way- Sometimes I see a colorful sunset and muse that it looks like a painting. Then there are some sunsets that look so strange, so odd in color and structure, that they look like they are a BAD painting, like if someone painted that exact sunset I’d say it looked completely unrealistic. But there that sunset is in front of me, struggling to reach a consensus on health care reform.
When I was younger, I didn’t think about politics. When I was a little older, I thought about politics in the abstract, but I scoffed at those that would, in my eyes, paint politics with a broad brush. I didn’t like labels, people claiming to be Republican or Democrat, and I thought anyone who paraded around with a serious opinion, whatever that may be, must just be an asshole. I figured the whole political process was so complicated that anyone who felt they knew enough to have a real opinion must have just found a point where they wanted to stop learning and debating and decided to settle down in a comfort zone. I saw that as lazy. But of course, all that did was save me the trouble of actually LEARNING about the political process myself. I didn’t understand that politics wasn’t something to solve like a Rubix Cube, but was something to observe like a slinky.
But I really wish I could go back to that bubble of mine. I wish I could step back from all this bullshit and just expect my government to work for me again. It was so much fun not to see the gears struggling to turn. At the very heart of my anger with the government is a very simple fact... No one wants to convince me of anything. No one really tries. The best we get are spokesmen, pundits, lobbyists, and the occasional senator on a news show squeezing in the bullet points of the ever evolving Republican or Democratic manifesto, whatever it happens to be that week, in the two and a half minutes on said show allotted to be filler while we wait for the newest information on how many women Tiger Woods fucks who aren’t his wife.
We get the same 15 people, over and over again, preaching to their own choirs instead of trying to convince the rest of us that they have a better idea, which would be fine except we don't live on FACTS anymore. What am I supposed to think when a dickhead with a red tie tells me “Polls say the public option is fiercely unpopular”, and then I can literally flip to another station and just get there in time to hear a dickhead in a blue tie tell me “Polls say the public option is heavily favored by the public”? Lewis Black is right, we live in a world where everyone has different sets of facts, and no one takes the time to check up on it all, because the only number that really counts is... yep, you guessed it, how many women Tiger Woods fucks who aren’t his wife. CNN right now has a news story headline “Chris Brown deletes his Twitter account”, and yet I can’t get one drop of solid information on things that really make the world go round. It’s always unchecked, unsourced, and belied by ulterior motives. It gets to a point where I can’t and don't trust ANYTHING I hear anywhere. Life is a god damn Wikipedia entry. It’s like when Michael Moore comes out with a new documentary. Watch it, marvel at the statistics, and then Google it and find the multitude of websites set out to debunk the statistics, then find the multitude of websites set out to debunk the sites that debunk the statistics... and so on... Till eventually you just want to lie down and never get up.
But that’s fine! I’m fine with not being able to trust polls and statistics as long as you CONVINCE ME on a moral and intellectual level that you’ve got the right idea with how to move this country forward. President Obama during the campaign scratched the surface when he bought time on all major networks and ran a special in which he very simply, very directly, told us about who he is and what he wants to do for the country. It doesn’t matter as much what his batting average is right now as it was to hear a man tell me WHY he believes what he believes. It was exactly what I needed. Conservatives blasted it because McCain didn’t have enough money to put up a counter program, to which I say I think the problem isn’t that Obama went on TV and spoke to us, but that it costs so much money to DO THAT.
THAT’S THE POINT- I want to be bombarded with television and radio programming coming right from the people that write and pass the laws we live by. I would love nothing more than a television program where the only thing between Joe Lieberman and the TV camera is the teleprompter scrolling a brilliant argument against the Democratic health care agenda that he wrote his god damned self. Because that’s what I want. That’s what I need. Then put Harry Reid up there and have him to the same damn thing. Why can’t half my newspaper JUST be op-ed pieces by each member of the Senate and House saying SPECIFICALLY what they want to do and why they want to do it. We live in a world where information is so fucking easy to get, so why aren’t our leaders really FIGHTING for our eyes and ears? Convince me. CONVINCE ME. I’m a practical guy, and I and most of my friends would agree that our opinions are our own until someone convinces me otherwise. Stand up there and show me why we elected you to lead, and believe that you can change some minds while you do it.
I just heard on the radio a recording of Joe Lieberman 3 months ago saying he proposed lowering the age of Medicare from 65 to 55. If it’s not blatant hypocrisy that he’s now blowing the horn in opposition to the idea, then I need him to get in front of a fucking camera and tell me what the difference was 3 months ago. I need him to step up and tell me what he meant when he said what he said then, and why it’s not the same now. I need him to convince me he didn’t just get caught in a bullshit storm. CONVINCE me. And while your at it, tell me why I should listen to you considering your wife is a spokeswoman for the health insurance industry, because that’s what I heard too. Did I hear wrong? Is she? Isn’t she? Do I have a skewed sense of accountability on the matter? Is she a lobbyist, but it’s more complicated and I shouldn’t just assume your word is bullshit because of it? Then CONVINCE ME. Tell me why you think what you think. Because right now the system I’m using to make my opinion is that I hear that you proposed the exact same plan that you are now trying to destroy, and that your wife works for the insurance companies. I hear these things that succinctly. If it’s more complicated than that, then give me a complicated answer. And don't worry if I don't catch all of it, because I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want their leaders to SOUND SMART. I WANT to feel inferior to those leading me, because it helps me sleep at night knowing I can’t possibly do your job better.
The Joe Lieberman example is what I want from EVERYONE. CONVINCE ME. I’ll believe you if you are good enough of a speaker, I promise you. Hell, I know three or four liberals who got a little misty eyed for Ron Paul during the primaries, because the guy had a really good way of convincing people of hitherto unpopular ideas. Granted I still don’t think we should be an isolationist nation, but I swear to god he got me thinking about it. It’s evidence that I could be a Republican tomorrow if someone only convinced me.
Up till now I’ve been bipartisan in my assessment of how fucked our government is, but I would like to take just a second to say I don’t understand how the Republicans don't think they need to take a stronger stance on healthcare reform. I treat the evolution of our government like a court trial. I think that the creation of laws is innocent until proven guilty. If legislation makes it to the Senate and House, then I assume enough people believe it’s important that it deserves honest debate. Enough time and energy went into it. The legislation in and of itself is innocent. If you however, disagree with it, then it is YOUR DUTY TO CON VICE ME IT IS DEBILITATING OR REDUNDANT OR UNNECESSARY. Prove it guilty. Republicans right now just sit back, as if all they need to do is “react” to what comes at them, instead of either coming up with their own plan or REALLY explaining why the Democrats are wrong. I firmly believe that if the Republicans were the majority, and they introduced legislation that I didn’t agree with, then I would EXPECT from the Democrats a valid exploration into why that legislation is wrong. I wouldn’t be content with just sitting back. Because guess what, the status quo in this country isn’t working. It just isn’t. So anyone who shoots down attempts at changing things without giving their own ideas on the subject gives me the impression that they are fine with how things are going. Which is a bad assumption to be made of our leaders
This is getting long. I just wish I lived with a media culture that could easily allocate time and manpower to letting our leaders REALLY talk to us, with no strings attached. Because right now I think a great many of us, most of us actually, are growing into cynical bags of discord. I hear these things about Joe Lieberman, for example, and then everyone fucking moves on and I don’t get to hear his side of it. So now I live with this assumption that Joe Lieberman is a hypocrite and asshole. Now that’s etched in stone, but only because no one convinced me otherwise. And it’s like that with a thousand and one points of interest for me and everyone I know. It’s what drives us apart. Everyone has their little talking points of why so and so cant be trusted, and why such and such doesn’t work, because they heard something controversial and then the news cycle rushed forward before they could get the real truth about it. So we live with constantly being 60% sure of what we think, because we never got the chance to REALLY sit down and see the other side. I don’t fear the other side, and It don’t think many smart people fear the other side. I’d be much happier being a Republican who was 90% of what he thought than a Democrat who is 60% sure.
And if we lived in that world where our leaders unabashedly spoke to us, burying us with opinion and policy until we can’t breathe, I can’t imagine anyone saying “Yea, can we dumb this down? I know it’s abortion, I know it’s gay rights, I know it’s healthcare, but can you talk LESS about it, please?” And even if it’s not completely about CONVINCING us to change our mind, at least we’d walk around with a better understanding of why the other side thinks what it thinks. That’s the other problem. Right now we hear so little of the argument, that liberals can’t understand how Republicans really think what they think, and vice versa. It makes us subconsciously, or consciously for the more angry of us, dehumanize those we disagree with, which sounds strikingly familiar to an argument I made about our foreign policy a few months ago. Not talking to the enemy, or not really listening to the enemy is the beginning of the end. I’d be so much happier if Joe Lieberman talked to me for hours and hours until there was NOTHING more he wanted say, because then I’d be so much happier with my opinion of him, whatever that would be. Right now I just think he looks like a muppet.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Liberal Condescension, or "Sorry GOP, I'll Use Smaller Words In My Rebuttal"
by D. Ray Morton
A whole ago Dennis Miller interviewed a guy who wrote a conservative article, and possibly a book if I’m not mistaken, about growing condescension from liberals toward the GOP. Basically he was making the argument that over the last 20 years, the “intellectual” institutions of the country have become more and more liberal, and combined with the left leaning bias of the media and the entertainment industry, the conservatives are left with an arrogant monster of an opposition party in the democrats. This guy contends that liberals are quicker to place conservatives into a stereotype and present them as either one tooth, “sister kissing” rednecks, or they are corporate money barons who fuck over the rest of the country with dishonest fiscal practices, with nothing in the middle.
I was listening to this interview with mild interest and even milder disagreement, until the guy used an example of how we liberals “paint conservatives with one broad brush”. He made the point that liberals listen to Sarah Palin make a ridiculous comment and then assume that’s the conservative agenda. Then he referenced Glen Beck. At that point I kinda wanted to reach in through my radio and throttle the guy. It’s one thing to say liberals are guilty of stereotypes. Personally I happen to see conservatives do the same thing just as much, as this guy did many times in the interview. (I’m pretty sure the word “elitist” came up a couple times) Is it a problem? Sure. Is it a big problem? No. Is only one side guilty of it? Sure as shit no. But when you suddenly talk about there being fault in liberals judging conservative ideals based on the bullshit that comes from Sara Palin and Glen Beck, I have to scream foul. If either of them represented some isolated extreme of conservative followers, then yeah, of course I’d take issue if liberals picked apart everything they said and held it up as evidence the republicans are retarded. But Sara Palin and Glen Beck are the BIGGEST NAMES IN POPULAR CONSERVATISM. Toss in Rush Limbaugh and you’ve got the unholy trinity. Since she burst onto the scene, Sarah Palin has been IMMENSELY popular with the conservative population in this country... maybe not the conservative media, who either try to either coddle her or not mention her at all, but the PEOPLE, the conservative PEOPLE? They love her. Glen Beck has the biggest audience for political commentary out there. Same with Rush.... so... Given their popularity, when liberals scrutinize their words and find a good argument that Sarah Palin is fucking stupid, then Glen Beck is fucking insane, and Rush Limbaugh is riding high on a long career of being both, it isn’t a stretch to assume some of what they say is more than just one facet of the conservative movement, but is the BULK of the conservative movement. This isn’t to say I think that every senator and representative with an “R” next to his name is a dipshit. My only point is that if a certain person is IMMENSELY popular with the people, and that person says something stupid with every breath, then you cant blame me for judging those people that like her. Smarter conservatives can roll their eyes at Sarah Palin all they want, but until they have her poll numbers and Glen Beck’s audience, I’m not going to trust they know which way the wind is blowing.
And here’s the other thing... Glen Beck, a political commentator, commenting that he thinks Obama is a racist... where are the conservatives coming out of the woodwork to say that’s bullshit? Where are the conservatives who hear Rush Limbaugh spout his hate speech and say it’s bullshit? Where are the conservatives coming out of the woodwork to say, on camera, that Obama WAS born in the United States, he IS the President, he isn't a muslim, he isn’t a socialist, and there is no such thing as death panels? I never see REAL conservatives who want to have honest debate come out and denounce the bullshit. When Rush, Sarah, and Glen all go on their tirades, and then real conservatives just don't talk about it, then what the fuck am I supposed to think? Logic would dictate that I’d have to think one of two things.... Either most conservatives really believe what the three stooges propagate but know they can’t say it themselves because of political retribution, or they DON’T believe them and think it’s not even worth mentioning, which would be sound reasoning if the bullshit weren't coming from names that big.
Obviously, if a HUGE name in liberalism said something stupid, I’d call him on it. The fact is, liberals don’t really have ONE or TWO or THREE demagogues like the conservatives, because I think they are a little more practical with their beliefs. It’s hardly a comparison, but sometimes I completely agree with Keith Olbermann, and sometimes I disagree with him, and if someone asked, I’d tell them so. If Keith Olbermann goes on TV tomorrow and says George Bush is a racist, I’d disagree with that, and I think alot of people would and alot of people would say so.
Look at this this way, the conspiracy theorists are out there on both sides, but the liberal conspiracy theories are much easier to believe, because they are based on motives, money, and actions, while conservatives think Barack Obama wasn’t born in America even after seeing his birth certificate. If a liberal president and his vice president worked for oil companies, made absurd profits, and then started a war under false pretenses in a country where there was oil money to be made... I’d... say... something... about it... and even if I didn’t think it was shady, I certainly wouldn’t think it was ridiculous to have a discussion about it.
It’s just nuts.
A whole ago Dennis Miller interviewed a guy who wrote a conservative article, and possibly a book if I’m not mistaken, about growing condescension from liberals toward the GOP. Basically he was making the argument that over the last 20 years, the “intellectual” institutions of the country have become more and more liberal, and combined with the left leaning bias of the media and the entertainment industry, the conservatives are left with an arrogant monster of an opposition party in the democrats. This guy contends that liberals are quicker to place conservatives into a stereotype and present them as either one tooth, “sister kissing” rednecks, or they are corporate money barons who fuck over the rest of the country with dishonest fiscal practices, with nothing in the middle.
I was listening to this interview with mild interest and even milder disagreement, until the guy used an example of how we liberals “paint conservatives with one broad brush”. He made the point that liberals listen to Sarah Palin make a ridiculous comment and then assume that’s the conservative agenda. Then he referenced Glen Beck. At that point I kinda wanted to reach in through my radio and throttle the guy. It’s one thing to say liberals are guilty of stereotypes. Personally I happen to see conservatives do the same thing just as much, as this guy did many times in the interview. (I’m pretty sure the word “elitist” came up a couple times) Is it a problem? Sure. Is it a big problem? No. Is only one side guilty of it? Sure as shit no. But when you suddenly talk about there being fault in liberals judging conservative ideals based on the bullshit that comes from Sara Palin and Glen Beck, I have to scream foul. If either of them represented some isolated extreme of conservative followers, then yeah, of course I’d take issue if liberals picked apart everything they said and held it up as evidence the republicans are retarded. But Sara Palin and Glen Beck are the BIGGEST NAMES IN POPULAR CONSERVATISM. Toss in Rush Limbaugh and you’ve got the unholy trinity. Since she burst onto the scene, Sarah Palin has been IMMENSELY popular with the conservative population in this country... maybe not the conservative media, who either try to either coddle her or not mention her at all, but the PEOPLE, the conservative PEOPLE? They love her. Glen Beck has the biggest audience for political commentary out there. Same with Rush.... so... Given their popularity, when liberals scrutinize their words and find a good argument that Sarah Palin is fucking stupid, then Glen Beck is fucking insane, and Rush Limbaugh is riding high on a long career of being both, it isn’t a stretch to assume some of what they say is more than just one facet of the conservative movement, but is the BULK of the conservative movement. This isn’t to say I think that every senator and representative with an “R” next to his name is a dipshit. My only point is that if a certain person is IMMENSELY popular with the people, and that person says something stupid with every breath, then you cant blame me for judging those people that like her. Smarter conservatives can roll their eyes at Sarah Palin all they want, but until they have her poll numbers and Glen Beck’s audience, I’m not going to trust they know which way the wind is blowing.
And here’s the other thing... Glen Beck, a political commentator, commenting that he thinks Obama is a racist... where are the conservatives coming out of the woodwork to say that’s bullshit? Where are the conservatives who hear Rush Limbaugh spout his hate speech and say it’s bullshit? Where are the conservatives coming out of the woodwork to say, on camera, that Obama WAS born in the United States, he IS the President, he isn't a muslim, he isn’t a socialist, and there is no such thing as death panels? I never see REAL conservatives who want to have honest debate come out and denounce the bullshit. When Rush, Sarah, and Glen all go on their tirades, and then real conservatives just don't talk about it, then what the fuck am I supposed to think? Logic would dictate that I’d have to think one of two things.... Either most conservatives really believe what the three stooges propagate but know they can’t say it themselves because of political retribution, or they DON’T believe them and think it’s not even worth mentioning, which would be sound reasoning if the bullshit weren't coming from names that big.
Obviously, if a HUGE name in liberalism said something stupid, I’d call him on it. The fact is, liberals don’t really have ONE or TWO or THREE demagogues like the conservatives, because I think they are a little more practical with their beliefs. It’s hardly a comparison, but sometimes I completely agree with Keith Olbermann, and sometimes I disagree with him, and if someone asked, I’d tell them so. If Keith Olbermann goes on TV tomorrow and says George Bush is a racist, I’d disagree with that, and I think alot of people would and alot of people would say so.
Look at this this way, the conspiracy theorists are out there on both sides, but the liberal conspiracy theories are much easier to believe, because they are based on motives, money, and actions, while conservatives think Barack Obama wasn’t born in America even after seeing his birth certificate. If a liberal president and his vice president worked for oil companies, made absurd profits, and then started a war under false pretenses in a country where there was oil money to be made... I’d... say... something... about it... and even if I didn’t think it was shady, I certainly wouldn’t think it was ridiculous to have a discussion about it.
It’s just nuts.
The Thumb of Government
by D. Ray Morton
So last night, in between peach pie and introducing my family to my future mother in law, I found myself whispering politics with my dad from across the dinner table while everyone else talked the wedding. I love our talks, or our “whispers” in this case, and I know I am always in for a conservative rundown of the current state of the Union when we do have them.
The meat of the conversation was about whether someone should either believe the government has the right to control so many aspects of our lives, my father obviously siding on the argument that forcing everyone to have heath care is nearly criminal and definitely unconstitutional, and my siding on the argument that while I agree that extreme government control is bad for the country, I think it’s better than letting the free market run amok.
During our conversation, I equated the country as a giant bolder stuck near the top of a mountain. On one side of the mountain is the valley of socialism, complete control over every choice you make by the government, and on the other side is the valley of complete freedom from the government, in which the free market reigns supreme without any restriction. My argument comes from the fact that I see our country as either rolling down one side or the other. It is impossible to place it right at the top, and no one even seems eager to do so. Instead, we seem to go through cycles of regulation and more regulation and more regulation, letting the boulder slide toward the socialist valley, and then we the majority switches parties and the boulder finds itself rolling the either way. the important visual here is that I concede that it’s a slippery slope either way, and once either party is in power, the boulder just keeps rolling. But my point to my father was that if we acknowledge that we cant get that boulder right on top of the mountain then it all comes down to which side of the mountain we want the boulder to roll. And I, as most liberals or progressives, side with the government regulatory side. I think it’s better for the country, and this is why.
First of all, conservatives really can’t argue that they are against government control as a general practice. After all, they don’t really mind government control when it comes to limiting abortion and teaching creationism in schools, do they? The point is, they are against CERTAIN KINDS of regulation, regulation that speaks against their credo. But the same can be true for democrats and independents and everyone else. Everyone is fine with government control if said control favors their value system. It’s all subjective and dependent on how far you think the Constitution and our morals give flavor to a certain subject. But for some reason conservatives cornered the market on “get the government out of our hair!”, as if a conservative majority would actually lower the government’s role to fixing potholes and mailing our care packages. It’s just not true. The government is always going to be there pushing an agenda forward, the only question is WHICH.
For that matter, a national mandate for healthcare was originally introduced as a republican idea back in the early 90’s, so the argument that this is a sure sign of government takeover is SILLY. It’s hypocrisy. It’s just the team that is not in power throwing stones at the team in power. It isn’t the only recent example, but it is one of the most glaring ones. The conversation SHOULD be about convincing me it isn’t all hypocrisy, but instead republicans just like to brush it aside, like it doesn’t matter, as if I’m not supposed to notice.
The conservative view is that the government shouldn’t be there with a handout for people, coddling them into expecting a national “teat” to suckle at. Food stamps, unemployment... none of these programs should be used to weaken us into lazily expecting the government to keep us going. We should pick ourselves up by own own bootstraps and make something of ourselves, like our ancestors did. The problem is it’s easy to go back to Ellis Island and consider that as a CLEAN slate for all American potential. Right now we live in a very complicated country. Unfortunately we aren’t all created equal. I don’t particularly believe in affirmative action, for instance, but I would also rather live in a country that didn’t discriminate enough to NEED affirmative action. My point is, it’s not a black and white issue. You can’t say the struggles your great grandfather overcame to be a success in this country are the same as now, and therefore require the exact same assistance, or lack thereof, from the government. Do I think people deserve to be coddled? No. Do I think that is what’s happening? Sure, sometimes. But my argument is that I think that is an opportunity for the government to step in EVEN MORE than it already does. Would conservatives have a problem if the government came in and set down harsher regulations for programs aimed at helping those in need? I think that if the President made a speech in which he convinced me that a certain government program wasn’t encouraging people to be their best, if it was doing nothing more than giving a “handout” to people, and that regulation needed to fix it, I’d be for it! I want this country to be build on “DO”, not on “GIMME”. I asked my father if he had a problem with all government intervention, or if he’d be in favor of the hypothetical I produced. What if the government not only laid down restrictions on big business and corrupt corporations, but also on public services that let people take advantage of the system?
Also, during my boulder on the mountain analogy, I compared the American people to a small child, and the government to a parent or guardian. It should be there to guide, support, and help us grow. It should inspire new ways of thinking and be there to point us in the right direction. But just like when we have safeguards when a parent abuses his child, we have safeguards for when the government abuses it’s people. They are called ELECTIONS. Nothing lasts forever, the paradigm shifts, the other side takes power, and the country keeps moving. I’ve never understood how people are so angry with Obama, as if the boulder has already come to a violent stop in the socialism valley. It hasn’t. Progressives don't WANT it to. I trust government in my life because I believe the system will shake off those in power if those in power aren’t good for the system. I believe in government regulation because I believe we as a country wont let it go to far. By contrast, I don’t believe in complete capitalistic freedom, because in my opinion I think we’ve seen we as a country WILL let it go to far. We are too greedy, too insatiable, too gluttonous to trust with the keys, aren’t we? But we as a country have it in us to have a RATIONAL discourse about the limits or freedoms of the Constitution, and once we make a decision on that, then the boulder gets reset somewhere higher up on the mountain. But bringing guns to Obama rallies, hate speech, false accusations about “death panels”... these don't further the national conversation on the subject. I’d love to have a conversation with a conservative about the Constitutionality of government mandated health insurance, but I’d need them to take the gun out of their hand and stop treating the topic with the adrenaline induced defense mechanisms akin to getting slapped in the face when you weren't expecting it.
My point keeps coming back to what the conversation SHOULD be. The conversation is what changes minds, puts people in office and changes things for the better. But the conversation can’t happen if one side doesn’t show up. When Bush was in power, the liberal outrage produced VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST BUSH. Where are the conservatives making good arguments? I guess all I want to say is that I live in a country where I am required to have health insurance, and I still feel like I live in a FREE country. If the thumb of government oppression ever found it’s way to my back, I’d rise up against it, as I’m sure we all would, but to conservatives tea party loons who scream “HELL YEAH!! THAT’S WHAT WE ARE DOING! WE ARE RISING UP AGAINST THIS OPPRESSION!”, I just defer to my earlier argument that government mandated healthcare was a republican idea in the early 90’s, then I ask for any documentation they have of their outrage back then, and then when they can’t produce any, I ask them where their REAL argument is, besides floundering in partisan hypocrisy. 15 years ago it was YOUR idea, so your outrage now is bullshit.
I think that if 15 years ago we had a democratic President who took us to war under false pretenses, then yes, I’d have trouble with a liberal outrage now over the Bush administration doing the same thing, and I wouldn’t blame anyone for pointing the hypocrisy out to me. But that’s not the kind of national conversation our country wants to have, and that’s the craziest thing in the world.
So last night, in between peach pie and introducing my family to my future mother in law, I found myself whispering politics with my dad from across the dinner table while everyone else talked the wedding. I love our talks, or our “whispers” in this case, and I know I am always in for a conservative rundown of the current state of the Union when we do have them.
The meat of the conversation was about whether someone should either believe the government has the right to control so many aspects of our lives, my father obviously siding on the argument that forcing everyone to have heath care is nearly criminal and definitely unconstitutional, and my siding on the argument that while I agree that extreme government control is bad for the country, I think it’s better than letting the free market run amok.
During our conversation, I equated the country as a giant bolder stuck near the top of a mountain. On one side of the mountain is the valley of socialism, complete control over every choice you make by the government, and on the other side is the valley of complete freedom from the government, in which the free market reigns supreme without any restriction. My argument comes from the fact that I see our country as either rolling down one side or the other. It is impossible to place it right at the top, and no one even seems eager to do so. Instead, we seem to go through cycles of regulation and more regulation and more regulation, letting the boulder slide toward the socialist valley, and then we the majority switches parties and the boulder finds itself rolling the either way. the important visual here is that I concede that it’s a slippery slope either way, and once either party is in power, the boulder just keeps rolling. But my point to my father was that if we acknowledge that we cant get that boulder right on top of the mountain then it all comes down to which side of the mountain we want the boulder to roll. And I, as most liberals or progressives, side with the government regulatory side. I think it’s better for the country, and this is why.
First of all, conservatives really can’t argue that they are against government control as a general practice. After all, they don’t really mind government control when it comes to limiting abortion and teaching creationism in schools, do they? The point is, they are against CERTAIN KINDS of regulation, regulation that speaks against their credo. But the same can be true for democrats and independents and everyone else. Everyone is fine with government control if said control favors their value system. It’s all subjective and dependent on how far you think the Constitution and our morals give flavor to a certain subject. But for some reason conservatives cornered the market on “get the government out of our hair!”, as if a conservative majority would actually lower the government’s role to fixing potholes and mailing our care packages. It’s just not true. The government is always going to be there pushing an agenda forward, the only question is WHICH.
For that matter, a national mandate for healthcare was originally introduced as a republican idea back in the early 90’s, so the argument that this is a sure sign of government takeover is SILLY. It’s hypocrisy. It’s just the team that is not in power throwing stones at the team in power. It isn’t the only recent example, but it is one of the most glaring ones. The conversation SHOULD be about convincing me it isn’t all hypocrisy, but instead republicans just like to brush it aside, like it doesn’t matter, as if I’m not supposed to notice.
The conservative view is that the government shouldn’t be there with a handout for people, coddling them into expecting a national “teat” to suckle at. Food stamps, unemployment... none of these programs should be used to weaken us into lazily expecting the government to keep us going. We should pick ourselves up by own own bootstraps and make something of ourselves, like our ancestors did. The problem is it’s easy to go back to Ellis Island and consider that as a CLEAN slate for all American potential. Right now we live in a very complicated country. Unfortunately we aren’t all created equal. I don’t particularly believe in affirmative action, for instance, but I would also rather live in a country that didn’t discriminate enough to NEED affirmative action. My point is, it’s not a black and white issue. You can’t say the struggles your great grandfather overcame to be a success in this country are the same as now, and therefore require the exact same assistance, or lack thereof, from the government. Do I think people deserve to be coddled? No. Do I think that is what’s happening? Sure, sometimes. But my argument is that I think that is an opportunity for the government to step in EVEN MORE than it already does. Would conservatives have a problem if the government came in and set down harsher regulations for programs aimed at helping those in need? I think that if the President made a speech in which he convinced me that a certain government program wasn’t encouraging people to be their best, if it was doing nothing more than giving a “handout” to people, and that regulation needed to fix it, I’d be for it! I want this country to be build on “DO”, not on “GIMME”. I asked my father if he had a problem with all government intervention, or if he’d be in favor of the hypothetical I produced. What if the government not only laid down restrictions on big business and corrupt corporations, but also on public services that let people take advantage of the system?
Also, during my boulder on the mountain analogy, I compared the American people to a small child, and the government to a parent or guardian. It should be there to guide, support, and help us grow. It should inspire new ways of thinking and be there to point us in the right direction. But just like when we have safeguards when a parent abuses his child, we have safeguards for when the government abuses it’s people. They are called ELECTIONS. Nothing lasts forever, the paradigm shifts, the other side takes power, and the country keeps moving. I’ve never understood how people are so angry with Obama, as if the boulder has already come to a violent stop in the socialism valley. It hasn’t. Progressives don't WANT it to. I trust government in my life because I believe the system will shake off those in power if those in power aren’t good for the system. I believe in government regulation because I believe we as a country wont let it go to far. By contrast, I don’t believe in complete capitalistic freedom, because in my opinion I think we’ve seen we as a country WILL let it go to far. We are too greedy, too insatiable, too gluttonous to trust with the keys, aren’t we? But we as a country have it in us to have a RATIONAL discourse about the limits or freedoms of the Constitution, and once we make a decision on that, then the boulder gets reset somewhere higher up on the mountain. But bringing guns to Obama rallies, hate speech, false accusations about “death panels”... these don't further the national conversation on the subject. I’d love to have a conversation with a conservative about the Constitutionality of government mandated health insurance, but I’d need them to take the gun out of their hand and stop treating the topic with the adrenaline induced defense mechanisms akin to getting slapped in the face when you weren't expecting it.
My point keeps coming back to what the conversation SHOULD be. The conversation is what changes minds, puts people in office and changes things for the better. But the conversation can’t happen if one side doesn’t show up. When Bush was in power, the liberal outrage produced VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST BUSH. Where are the conservatives making good arguments? I guess all I want to say is that I live in a country where I am required to have health insurance, and I still feel like I live in a FREE country. If the thumb of government oppression ever found it’s way to my back, I’d rise up against it, as I’m sure we all would, but to conservatives tea party loons who scream “HELL YEAH!! THAT’S WHAT WE ARE DOING! WE ARE RISING UP AGAINST THIS OPPRESSION!”, I just defer to my earlier argument that government mandated healthcare was a republican idea in the early 90’s, then I ask for any documentation they have of their outrage back then, and then when they can’t produce any, I ask them where their REAL argument is, besides floundering in partisan hypocrisy. 15 years ago it was YOUR idea, so your outrage now is bullshit.
I think that if 15 years ago we had a democratic President who took us to war under false pretenses, then yes, I’d have trouble with a liberal outrage now over the Bush administration doing the same thing, and I wouldn’t blame anyone for pointing the hypocrisy out to me. But that’s not the kind of national conversation our country wants to have, and that’s the craziest thing in the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)