My lefty friends stare at me blankly when I ask why that outdated, goofy guy known as "The Man" is still at the core of their social doctrine. They insist theirs is a political orientation that is sophisticated and intellectual, appreciative of the nuances of modern capitalistic society and the actual individual human beings involved therein. Then we get this:Chris Matthews, on Tuesday's "Hardball," invited on California Senator Barbara Boxer to dismiss the increasing number of town hall protestors opposed to Obama's liberal agenda as the "angry, and "noisy," "well-dressed middle-class people in pinks and limes...Brooks Brothers Brigade."
And,The White House is now taking a hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions of Democrats' town hall meetings, the Washington Times reports, with press secretary Robert Gibbs referring to it this morning as "the Brook Brothers Brigade"....
He's back! And he's white, old, in khakis and a blue oxford ... The Man!!
The divisive intent of "well dressed middle class people" intentionally stokes class envy, at best, and is bigoted and hateful, at its worst. These citizens, like all people, deserve both dignity and respect.
He then goes on to discuss how easy it is to slip into using the word they with abandon.
Our President has been using "they" and "them" quite a bit. He said the following in reference to citizens clamoring to be heard at town hall meetings:The article makes some points that I had not thought of and think may have some merit.But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.Them who? They who? What folks? What special interests? Did anyone voting last November believe the winner of the election would represent only those who voted for him? Did anyone believe that a vote cast might neuter that voter's future ability to participate in democracy? Did anyone voting for McCain expect such intolerance from Obama, or anyone voting for Obama expect such intolerance from McCain?
The word "they" has a really creepy way of simplifying, stereotyping, dismissing and aggregating so as to diminish the dignity of individuals, as in the following uses: "They are always trying to keep us down." "They are subversive." "They need to get out of the way." Our civil rights heroes are very cognizant of the misuses of "they".
Discuss.....
3 comments:
Great, the points have merit, but this is just another shining example of ad hominen attacks which stand in the way of intelligent people actually attacking a problem.
Example: We have a current health care system which encourages cost inflation due to a lack of consumer and practictioner incentives. This system also a)leaves some citizens out, which should be unacceptable in a moral society and b)drives some to bankruptcy due to medical emergency, which should be unacceptable in a moral society. How should we fix this?
Mature, Reasoned Argument from Limited Government Advocates should be: We should encourage private sector health plans which allow the consumer to fully understand costs of treatment, and rewards the practictioners for delivering cost efficient care. We will work out a system to cover the less fortunate in a more cost-efficient manner than at present, but let's not derail the whole plan based on exaggerated claims of the real # of uninsured etc...
Actual Argument from Those who have Hijacked the "Limited Government Role in This debate: SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, Obama Death Panels, U.S. Post Office, SOCIALISM, Obama is not a citizen!, Patients are Dropping Over Dead in Canada and the U.K. (Funny nobody mentions Singapore btw)
In reverse, the Mature, Reasoned Argument for the Expansive Government Advocates should sound something like this: Health care should not be denied either to the less fortunate or the less well (i.e. pre-existing condition job changers etc..). So long as there is no public option for those outside of our current system, we can assume that profit incentives for insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies et al. will ovveride the moral obligation for a society to care for its weakest members. Thus, we must create a public option, and we must be prepared to accept the fact that this system will be more costly per capita due to the adverse selection inherent in the system. We are willing as a society to undertake this cost, but we also will attempt to be ruthlessly cost-efficient within this program.
Actual Argument: We will respond to ad hominen attacks in kind. Businesses will kill your Grandma blah blah blah.
This is all nonsense. Here's an example. How many times have either side talked about an actual health outcome? For example, has anybody mentioned what a great ROI could be had for certain preventive care measures? Can we not all agree that there are huge cost savings to be had from a clear IT roadmap?
I can't even tune in to the Health Care debate. It really is like watching two 8 year olds scream at each other.
Pardon my rambling response.... I hope you are able to sift out some nuggets of wisdom.
The rub is that this is a make it up as you go along bill with an extremely short timetable. There was a general idea in place for a bill that demands years of debate and reform before passage. Change in a country this large cannot happen overnight. You can't turn a tanker on a dime and thats what our elected offcials are trying to do.
There really isn't much to argue with your points and I am in agreement with them for the most part, however I think you place too much faith in the moral fortitude of our government.
Mature Reasoned Arguments hold no water in today's society. You state,
"We are willing as a society to undertake this cost, but we also will attempt to be ruthlessly cost-efficient within this program."
There is no historical proof of the government or quasi corporate/government entities being ruthlessly cost-efficient. They are by definition excessive money losers. What makes you think now is so much different than the past?
Face it Tim, we are in a lowest common denominator society. 8 year old type arguments are all you are going to get from the general public. That said, on a larger scale and longer time frame, these flamboyant displays of pre-pubescent lamentation usually lead to the beginning of some sort of collective unity of purpose (forming opposing sides). You then have a battle of sorts and from the dust of battle, you progress.
This is a huge jump to conclusion, but the Boston tea party was merely a childish act from people forming that collective unity of purpose.
These ad hominem attacts if pursued by both sides long enough are the seeds of change. Change is messy, long-winded, and painful but if it is undergone, eventually we will achieve some sort of collective betterment. It is just unfair and academic to think that it will be achieved through rational protocol.
Throughout history true change doesn't come from the giant behemoth that is government. Like I said earlier you can't turn a tanker on a dime. As a country, we plod along on the same path, unwilling to make any real changes in our course. The larger and more complex we get the harder it is to change. People are comforted by status quo, but sometimes that vacillation weans and you get what we have here today.
Lets hope it evolves into something larger. Because the alternative is scary......
"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." - John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, 1763
GRRRRR blog owner. Your blog ate my ~1000 word response this morning.
In summary: Regarding your Tea Party analogy: we are all on the same team! Hurl personal insults at your enemy, not a member of your own team.
I just wish we could talk about case studies and best practices rather than death panels and perpetual waiting lists and upon whom to proerly ascribe the ultimate goal of wanting to kill grandmothers. Especially since a signifcant majority would agree on the following: Let's figure out how to cover those who are left out and get a grip on costs. That's your health care debate in one sentence.
Post a Comment