Inevitably we are all going to "friend" someone on Facebook who posts lots of bolstering material for their chosen political ideology on their wall. I don't like to respond there. The wall is for person to person contact, and it's public. I'm not going to start a big ole word fight over things there, unless I feel compelled by the nature of the post.
But it would be fruitful to think some of them through here.
Latest case in point: the Tea Party and the supposed hypocrisy of some of its candidates, Joe Miller of AK to be specific in this article (I haven't read the Rolling Stone in AGES--ever since they knocked Metallica for writing "Don't Tread on Me" because it didn't fit their idea of how anti-war the band was somehow supposed to be). Fair warning the article is mildly salacious and is not opposed to harsh language and imagery.
Can I enjoy the wit in an opponent's sarcasm? Absolutely. But he's still fallacious.
First off, Candidate Miller has eight kids, so Mr. Taibbi calls his spouse a "breeder wife". Really? I mean, get your political point across, use whatever rhetorical sharpness your mind feels is necessary to make your case. This is America, and that is your right. But don't you feel the slightest shame at the use of such a term? Breeder wife? Is it just Mrs. Miller because she's the spouse of a political opponent? Or do you believe all women who choose to have more than your prescribed maximum of children (Is it the average 2.4? How many?) are somehow not entirely human, are somehow not agents of choice in the matter, are somehow akin to brainless animals to be used for their sexual organs, for the sole purpose of providing an owner with new marketable livestock? Is that what you really think of women with kids? How very shamefully intolerant, sir.
Mr. Taibbi's overall point, when the sarcasm is all filtered away, is that Mr. Miller has no compassion for people on welfare, and that it is manifestly inhumane of anyone to be so callous as to campaign on reducing the amount of handouts the federal government offers. So for a columnist whose main charge is intolerance, this kind of misogynistic epithet demonstrates a callousness of his own at the very least.
As for the rest, aside from its deliciously biting tone, I find it interesting how revealingly clever people can be when they don't realize they're projecting while accusing others of projecting. They honestly don't get it, he claims. Or rather, "They genuinely don’t see the contradiction," in his own words; the contradiction being that to have accepted any government subsidy or assistance whatsoever at any point in one's life puts a Tea Party believer's actions at odds with his professed beliefs that such government subsidies and assistance should be done away with.
Except that it's rather Mr. Taibbi who doesn't see the logic. And it's because he doesn't make critical distinctions, he doesn't examine the values and consequences underlying the policies he attacks, and he questions none of his own assumptions as he attempts to expose the supposed un-reflecting assumptions of the side he opposes. It's the mote and the beam, to be sure.
A discussion about the value and role of the welfare state is not honest, unless it admits a few facts: 1. there are poor people who need assistance, even in this richest and freest of countries.; 2. the poor in the US have it far better than the poor in any other country; 3. even poor people don't always stay needy; 4. throwing money at the problem is not neutral help, it also comes with a message, which over time, can lead to lack of motivation to achieve/produce.
Mr. Miller's message on welfare is NOT that no one on the dole deserves it or needs it. His profound belief is that people can learn to fish for a lifetime, and not just eat them for a day. And his own experience of rising through the need for welfare is not hypocrisy in the slightest, but is rather the very illustration of how welfare can work, given the proper values. And frankly, if Democrat pundits persist in imputing evil intentions to their Republican opponents, they will never be able to accurately diagnose their flagging poll numbers. The majority of Americans understand the conservative principles about welfare that I and Mr. Miller espouse and uphold. We understand that that the welfare question is not about who wants to give and who wants to deny, but rather should be a discussion about what is the best way to help. We get the idea that since most money is earned honestly through work, the people doing the working are the ones most likely to be accountable for and responsible with their spending decisions. We comprehend that a government has very little incentive to do such, so that one element of a more efficacious welfare system would consist of allowing people to keep more of what they earned in the first place. Poor people already don't pay taxes you say? Then you've missed the point. It's simply true: the rising tide floats all boats. Let people have their money, whatever they earned, and there is an incentive built in to every person's freedom to work to go out and overcome whatever's stopping them from being productive.
And while we're being honest about welfare, can we admit that there are some people who are dependent on it? Does that not beg the question of why the same system of handouts might produce desired outcomes and undesired outcomes? If you really believe in helping those of the poor who can work, and yet who don't have to because of a handout, then you're going to have to grow up some point, become an adult (yes, Mr. Taibbi, calling Tea Party candidates children is once again logically proven to be projection on your part) and give them the tough love of cutting it off. It would amaze you, I'm sure, to see how many, when faced with sinking or swimming, learn to swim.
And swim beautifully. And swim for the rest of their lives. And teach their families to swim. Because they had a real choice with real consequences, and because they live in America,which, like no place in the history of the world, has proven a place where no one need remain in poverty, they were enabled to rise above. And by doing so, they discovered that independence is much more valuable and profitable than just getting by.
There's a lot more to unravel in the article, but I'll leave it there for now.
Comments