Contributors

Monday, January 31, 2011

No Shit

If traffic lights were invented today, the Republican Party would be against them.

No shit. And so begins Anthony Schlaff's wonderful opinion piece in a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor.

It's a very honest discussion about how the word "freedom" has been hijacked by the conservative movement in this country. As with many things today, we need to unhijack it.

This thought experiment about traffic lights points to how simplistic and wrong-headed current Republican rhetoric about freedom is. Freedom is about rights, choices, and opportunities. Government action, whether through laws or taxes, does not necessarily restrict freedom. As with traffic lights, it can enhance freedom, and we need to be thoughtful, not reflexive, in how we view what we ask of government.

This is really all I have been saying. So have many other Democrats and even some (no longer pure) Republicans. Yet, we are now Hitler. Or Commies. Or whatever demonized bullshit word they come up with for the week.

As for the notion that the new health-care law robs us of freedom because it is a mandate, let us not forget that we as a society created our government to make our choices and we used this mechanism to do so. This was an exercise of our freedom!


Freedom starts with the opportunity to make choices, including the choice of whether to act individually or collectively. A choice once made sets us on a more limited path – but are we not freer for making choices rather than remaining forever frozen in a prechoice world of possibility but no fulfillment?

Therein lies the problem...acting collectively. Any sort of talk involving collective action is quickly demonized. This would involve following a law that some people (8 year old boys and/or adolescent power fantasists)  don't like. Right around now is where I imagine my 8 year old son, shouting, "I DON'T WANNNA!!!!!!"

Well...too bad....is what I usually say...followed by "Grow Up."

But here's the best part of the whole piece.

I know of no one on the left of the political spectrum who accepts the right's characterization that they are against personal responsibility. They believe in both personal and social responsibility, as these are complementary, not competing, notions. Trying to address major public problems with just a greater push for personal responsibility is like tying one of our hands behind our back. We must leverage social responsibility, too, enabling us to use both hands to tackle our toughest problems.

Complementary, not competing notions. This is what I have been saying all along. It has to be both.

Schlaff ends the article with a question.

If public schools or public drinking water and sewer systems were invented today, would Republicans oppose them, along with the traffic lights?

Sadly, he answers this in such a way that it demonstrates the enormous naivete on the part of the left. The answer is a simple YES because the conservative movement in this country worships (fake) people like Daniel Plainview. To them, Plainview is the perfect hero.

After I read this piece, I reached a conclusion. I am going to make it my life's mission to demolish Reagan's Nine Terrifying Words and all that lies behind them. They are a boy's fantasy meant strictly to undermine government efforts at regulation and to encourage private industry greed.

In short, they are a lie.

38 comments:

rld said...

> We are now HItler, or Commies.

or the Cult?

How about the CHOICE to opt out of the requirements of the new health care law that your administration is granting to all kinds of their friends? Is applying for a waiver to not comply with your beautiful law a CHOICE too?

Nikto said...

The real problem with the Republican Party's philosophy is that it gives businesses total freedom but absolutely no responsibilities. They seem to be of the opinion that a company that does something bad will be punished "in the marketplace" by a public who is angered by their behavior.

They don't want government to have any tools to enforce basic responsibilities of corporations to keep our air and water clean, keeping employees safe in their jobs, and paying workers a living wage.

In addition, Republicans want to gut anti-trust regulations so that companies can form monopolies that are truly unassailable. Which means that there is no competition and citizens literally have no alternative when the company does something we don't like. Which means the only check Republicans would have on corporations wouldn't work.

For example, cable TV companies are amassing more and more power (Comcast taking over NBC). I don't know about you, but I trust the phone company more than the cable company -- my phone and DSL bill stays the same and service (DSL line speed) has improved, while my cable bill just keeps going up and up, and the service (as represented by the poor quality of the cable company's DVR and their encryption of all cable channels when they switched over to digital, making it impossible to use my own computer-based DVR) is absolutely abysmal.

The difference is that phone companies are highly regulated and cable TV companies do anything they damn well please, even though they provide phone service. It's really quite outrageous.

Then there is the fact that if companies screw up big time they can disperse their assets to shell companies overseas, declare bankruptcy, shut their doors and leave everyone in the lurch. Meanwhile, the guys who made the decisions that caused the company to fail can simply go start a new company and do it all again using the cash they squirreled away in their shell companies.

When companies get too large or do things that are big and dangerous they have the capacity to completely destroy entire industries (BP trashing tourism and fishing in the Gulf), the economy (the mortgage industry), or even kill entire cities (dam operators or nuclear power plants). You can't let these guys do whatever they damn well please in the name of profit.

I'm all for individual liberty and responsibility. But we've seen over and over and over again that corporations don't take safety and the common good into account unless they're forced to. Not that all corporations are bad: lots do things with the best intentions. But, like the few welfare cheats and government fraudsters Republicans constantly whine about, there are people running companies that are just as lazy, greedy and selfish. And since regular folks have no way to see inside companies and tell what they're doing, we need a government with enough juice to do it for us.

TC said...

Mark stopped using the Cult term a long time ago, rld. He apologized for it. I have yet to hear any apologies from anyone on here for generalizing.

juris imprudent said...

Yet, we are now Hitler. Or Commies. Or whatever demonized bullshit word they come up with for the week.

You complain about demonizing? Pot, meet kettle. I do believe your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Of course you are conversing with the voices in your head again. But you knew that. Any time you'd actually like to engage with some real people, feel free to read what they write here and ask questions. As for stereotypes and caricaturizations, I would gladly disabuse you of them - but you keep insisting I should conform to them.

Who knows maybe some day you will actually demonstrate some of that vaunted critical thinking and not just cast all things in black and white. Oh, wait - that's another of those things that you accuse the other guys of doing, isn't it?

sasquatch said...

Mark doesn't demonize, juris. He repeats back what the right says and for whatever reason you agree with it. I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who called liberals Hitler.

juris imprudent said...

He repeats back what the right says and for whatever reason you agree with it. I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who called liberals Hitler.

Moron. Am I Jonah Goldberg? That's the whole fucking point about you being a little troop of howler monkeys. Anything that doesn't smell or look like one of the tribe gets shit flung at him. How about engaging with what is put in front of you - is that just too much of a goddam challenge for your little simian brains?

And fuck you asshole if you think M doesn't demonize [all who disagree with him] - only because you and the rest of Leftboro Baptist Church are singing from the same fucking hymnal.

You all truly are the mirror image of right-wing fundamentalists.

Anonymous said...

As for the notion that the new health-care law robs us of freedom because it is a mandate, let us not forget that we as a society created our government to make our choices and we used this mechanism to do so. This was an exercise of our freedom!

You appear to be saying that you'd be happy living in Lebanon. Yeah okay, so Hezbollah runs it as a religious semi-dictatorship. So what, they won the election, right?

So is any Lebanese who objects to rule by Hezbollah an "extremist"? It appears to be so, by your definition.

Anonymous said...

Yet, we are now Hitler. Or Commies. Or whatever demonized bullshit word they come up with for the week.

Why is it "demonization" to call someone a communist who calls themselves a communist?

Anonymous said...

My only question is: Aren't you done yet Juris?

Anonymous said...

Funny how dissent ceased to be patriotic the moment your guy got elected, huh? Somehow you didn't seem to have much of a problem with "anti-government extremists" for 8 long years...

Anonymous said...

I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who called liberals Hitler.

And I believe it was pretty much the entire left half of the political spectrum who called Bush and/or Cheney Hitler nearly on a daily basis for the entire time they were in office. And they still aren't done after they've been out of office for more than 2 years.

And your point is?

6Kings said...

After I read this piece, I reached a conclusion. I am going to make it my life's mission to demolish Reagan's Nine Terrifying Words and all that lies behind them. They are a boy's fantasy meant strictly undermine government efforts at regulation and to encourage private industry greed.

Far better men than you have tried and failed...good luck. You still show complete inability to distinguish proper function of government versus vast overreach and bloat. You have been given evidence and reasonable positions from the right over and over and over and over yet you still erect the same strawman argument about 'Republicans want no regulation' or 'Republicans hate all government'. Just keep the narrative no matter what is presented, right?

And Nikto,

The real problem with the Republican Party's philosophy is that it gives businesses total freedom but absolutely no responsibilities.

When you start with this, nothing else you say is worth reading as your entire premise is false. Try again.

juris imprudent said...

My only question is: Aren't you done yet Juris?

I'm getting close to done. It is exceedingly tiresome to engage with those who are essentially religious zealots (but won't admit to it).

You still show complete inability to distinguish proper function of government versus vast overreach and bloat.

Indeed. Having characterized Dirksen and Ford disapprovingly as extremist anti-govt Republicans [chortle, that still just kills me], I posed the question to M - where and when is govt over-grown and intrusive?

Of course he has not responded.

sasquatch said...

I never said there was anything unpatriotic about dissent. I do think that the general conservative ideology today would be extraordinarily destructive, though. We've seen it in action time and again in our history. The problem now is that it is so hysterical that with so many people in tough straits economically speaking, the propagandists have a captive audience. These same propagandists have enticed you to believe that the people actually working to solve the problems (most Democrats, the "RINOS" that you sneer at) are the devil. It's no wonder that you hate the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. We hate in others what we fear in ourselves.

rld said...

What problems have Jesse and Al solved?

Last in line said...

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/03/repeal-andsue.html

I can't believe how right I was. I'll mail any of you an autographed photo for $9.95 because that Florida judge must have read my comments on that entry. I'm flattered that I could be of such great service to this great nation of ours.

Mark Ward said...

It's funny, juris and 6Kings. Your definition of proper function of government overreach and bloat is my definition of proper. And my definition of "proper" is nowhere near communism/socialism/fascism/Hitler.
You bemoan my characterization of both of you yet you demonstrate the continued fantasy of accepting Reagan's terrifying words. His "theory" is ludicrous when you consider the reality.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/31/paul-broun/rep-paul-broun-says-innovation-would-flower-if-gov/

Willful ignorance or simple ignorance? BTW, this link is going to be a post soon:)

Anonymous said...

Politifact? Isn't that the same bunch who decided that "government run health care" was a lie based on the opinion of someone who thinks single payer doesn't qualify as "government run health care"?

Love your objective sources there Mark.

Anonymous said...

They believe in both personal and social responsibility, as these are complementary, not competing, notions.

So your exercise of "collective responsibility" in demanding ObamaCare relieves you of the personal responsibility to abide by its provisions, Mr. Teacher?

Have you noticed that labor unions, which represent about 7% of the workforce, have received about 40% of the waivers for ObamaCare? That includes your own union, does it not?

Real responsible.

Larry said...

Anybody who says Jonah Goldberg called liberals "Hitler" has not read Goldberg, misunderstands him, or is lying. Anything else they say after that is of little value.

The whole CS Monitor column is one giant straw man. It's ridiculous and untrue. Unless you're listening to voices in your head, of course. No wonder our host finds it so informative. Sheesh.

juris imprudent said...

Your definition of proper function of government overreach and bloat is my definition of proper.

WTF? Slow down and retype that sentence so it makes some kind of sense, okay?

I asked you what your definition of overreach and bloat is (not mine - I already know that). Apparently you don't have one. Is it really that tough a question? [Actually, I can imagine that it is, since you don't really have a measure.]

I mean, sure, we can argue about the difference between proper and bloated, once you have ANY definition for bloated. And does this mean you will FINALLY stop insisting I oppose ALL govt?

juris imprudent said...

By the way, there is a reason that Reagan's nine words are so famous, and your life mission to eradicate them is about as quixotic as a quest can get.

Nor was Reagan some anarchist, so obviously, even in his mind, govt had a role to play - a much smaller role than the infinite one you must desire. But then, what isn't smaller than infinity?

Mark Ward said...

I don't think you oppose all government, juris. Nor do I think 6Kings does either. But you seem to want so little of it that it makes no sense and has no practical application in reality.

I've defined my acceptable level of government many times on here. I'd like to see regulation of the financial sector that is similar to what FDR had. I think health care needs to be regulated. The health care bill is an alright fix but I'm sure it will need some modification as we move forward. The airlines have demonstrated that they aren't capable of setting their prices and that is interstate commerce in its purest form. I'd like to see that changed but I doubt it will be. Corporations aren't people yet I wouldn't mind if their taxes were reduced. I'd like to see taxes for the upper income folks go back to what they were pre-Bush. I think both Social Security and Medicare have been highly effective programs that prove that welfare capitalism works.

Last time I checked, you were against all of these items save for the cutting of corporate taxes. If I'm wrong, great! Show me where I am.

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, his words are famous, alright. A famous lie. Terrifying? Really? Considering the link that I have provided above filled with example after example of how the government has helped our country, I'd say it's a disgusting lie. And we all know why he said it.

juris imprudent said...

Jesus fucking christ on a flaming pogo stick Markadelphia - I asked you a relatively simple goddam question that you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED - how much govt is too much?

Are you serious - you have no answer? There is NO point at which you would say "this is too much"? REALLY?

But you seem to want so little of it that it makes no sense and has no practical application in reality.

Well - when you have no limit on the size of govt you would accept, hell yes, what I want looks mighty small in comparison. See this, this and this for examples.

Or, as a co-worker says "a govt that can give you everything is one that can take everything away from you". I know which end of that equation I'm likely to be on, and anyone that supports such a govt obviously expects to be the most undeserving beneficiary of such.

What's up with your turn on Reagan - you used to love him. Now because he always argued that the govt should have SOME limit you hate the guy? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that by someone who describes himself as a missionary.

Santa said...

He's answered it so many times, juris, that even I am now beginning to think that you have lost your mental faculties.

Larry said...

Speaking of quixotic ventures, I'm reading Edith Grossman's translation of Cervantes' great book. I find it amusing that poor mad Don Quixote reminds me so much of modern liberals, facts are unable to pierce their fogs of delusion. Even severe beatings are incorporated within his insane worldview. It's very sad, really.

juris imprudent said...

He's answered it so many times, juris

OK, Santa, how about you give me a link to any one of those answers, or quote it if you prefer. Then I will be happy to say how wrong and inattentive I am.

Otherwise, back to shoveling the reindeer shit for you.

Rudolph said...

How about you start off with THE ENTIRE BLOG, imbecile? Sweet fancy Moses!

juris imprudent said...

Oh Rudolph, shitting out of both ends now?

Can't any of you turds produce a single fact - or lacking that, admit that you are just a bunch of religious zealots.

Last in line said...

"Leftboro Baptist Church"

That's funny right there! Mwahahaha

Santa said...

Juris stands in front of giant pile of hay and wonders: Where is the straw? And then promptly yells at us for not pointing it out to him.

Last in line said...

I think the anonymous post at 4:42 needs repeating...

"They believe in both personal and social responsibility, as these are complementary, not competing, notions."

So your exercise of "collective responsibility" in demanding ObamaCare relieves you of the personal responsibility to abide by its provisions, Mr. Teacher?

Have you noticed that labor unions, which represent about 7% of the workforce, have received about 40% of the waivers for ObamaCare? That includes your own union, does it not?

Real responsible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess their personal responsibilities bitch slapped their social responsibilities. So, Last in Lines has concluded that the folks you all voted for are all for social responsibility...except for their closest friends. I'd love to know how any of you lefties view all these waivers. You all haven't uttered a peep.

Anonymous said...

I can't help wondering about how you define "reasonable regulation". For example, would you consider it "reasonable" for a company providing a service to be required to periodically inspect their equipment to make sure it's safe? You wouldn't want them killing anyone through negligence, would you?

And yet you went all anaphylactic and pitched a screaming hissy fit over Centerpoint Energy doing precisely that, because they were required to do so by the government.

I guess that makes you an anti-government wacko, huh?

What are you afraid of?

juris imprudent said...

Juris stands in front of giant pile of hay and wonders: Where is the straw? And then promptly yells at us for not pointing it out to him.

Uh, no. I asked M specifically (and repeatedly) at what point govt is too big? You then said he had answered (which he hasn't) lots of times. Now you say his entire blog is dedicated to defining his answering to this question.

I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

I have to admit, describing M's blog as a giant pile of straw is probably pretty accurate, if a touch unkind - particularly from an erstwhile supporter.

Larry said...

Well, of course M's blog is a big pile of straw! He needs a big supply for all the strawmen he's always building up and burning down.

Mark Ward said...

The talk of strawman arguments always amuses me as that is pretty much the entire line of conservative thought regarding liberals. It's all one giant strawman so, since that is the way they perceive things in life, the ascribe it to someone like me. Very, very in accurate yet highly amusing.

juris imprudent said...

It's all one giant strawman

It is when you continue to assert positions that I don't hold and expect me to defend them. It is when you do NOT comprehend what I write and instead argue against things that someone else (not even on this blog) supposedly said or wrote. Yes, that is pretty clearly battling great windmills built of straw.