For those who are close to me, I have not posted in this blog recently due to a change from the public sector to the private sector. Why now?
Well, why not? Apparently, the conservatives are starting to pull away from Sarah Palin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/late-returns-pushing-away-palin_n_836862.html. This is a good sign for American conservatives; that is, for Americans who are truly conservative, not those who insist that Fox News is a bastion of conservative "thought." I know of several of them, hiding as moderate Democrats or Republicans, who vote for third-parties or anonymously. Talking with them, the most popular complaint is that neither party appears to represent their interests. This is wholly true.
Who are they? College-educated people with burgeoning careers. My peers are attorneys, engineers, and accountants. They don't like to talk politics in a large forum because the topic is overwhelming. It is overwhelming not because of the melange of political talking points, but because politics is a complex topic that requires substantial knowledge to understand fully. For instance, many people accept that lower taxes will result in higher employment, but few really appreciate the several presumptions and considerations that must be accepted or argued before the maxim should be accepted. Shifting gears from the common concerns of our daytime jobs to a long, in-depth analysis of policy isn't exactly the most appealing thing to do on a Friday night. So, we don't -- or, many don't -- and we simply step away from politics.
It doesn't help that the figures we could support either do not understand or do not appear to appreciate the complexity of each issue. For instance, in Ohio, Gov. Kasich is prepared to recall the mandate to local schools to create all-day kindergarten classes in elementary schools. There is the obvious cost of the program to school districts, but there is little discussion on the savings on the part of parents and families. There is no analysis regarding whether the increased cost to school would be offset by the potential savings -- in time and daycare costs -- to families. There is little discussion of how full-day kindergarten can positively affect the development of children. In short, there's little discussion regarding the complexity of the issue itself.
We can blame the media for this. The U.S. Today model of breadth over depth is a deplorable shift from Kronkite-like journalism to the inexplicable (and ironic) fascination with blogs as sources of "information." We can blame Fox News for spouting half-truths, or Headline News for projecting a constant stream of surface knowledge that convinces viewers they are experts where they are barely amateurs. But there is truly no one to blame for this. It is the way it is.
Politicians are in a position to change this. Although Gov. Walker of Wisconsin has been maligned for his war against unions and workers' rights, Gov. Walker has never been shy to tell the media exactly why he is doing what he's doing. He declines from using shim-sham rhetoric (like Gov. Kasich did when he defended his assault on public workers' rights as leveling the playing field), which should be applauded. Similarly, the single Republican who voted against Wisconsin's anti-union bill admitted that he voted against his entire party because he felt that his constituents demanded him to do so, rather than attempt to drum up some half-wit concoction so often employed by amateur politicians (or veteran ones, like Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania).
The Huffington Post reports that conservatives, realizing that the widespread voter apathy is likely a product of the excellent education of the general public, are starting to move away from talking heads like Palin, in order to preserve the "quality of conservative thought." It's about bloody time. Maybe now we can talk intelligently about some cost-saving measures, like ending agricultural subsidies and the wasting of produce for non-nutritional purposes. Maybe we can talk intelligently about funding public broadcasting to protect our right to free speech and political expression. Maybe we can talk intelligently about enforcing anti-trust laws against gargantuan banks and insurance companies, or commercial businesses that are choking out small businesses. Maybe we can talk about how single-payer medical insurance is not only feasible in America, but would also decrease the expenses of American taxpayers and companies. Maybe we can talk about repealing the 1980 DIDMCA, and letting states police their lending institutions, or dissolving government-backing entities like Fannie Mae and selling off their assets. Maybe we could talk about truly shrinking the government.
Well, here's to hoping.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well if you think that because Republicans ("conservatives" as HuffPo calls them) are trying to turn the volume down on Palin, that they will now start considering ideas like single-payer health care, you've got another think coming. But you don't really believe this. You are lamenting the decline of real, substantive debate on issues that matter to you. But whether Palin or some other character becomes the figurehead at the forefront of "conservative" politics(Bachmann perhaps? L. O. L.), the debate will still be focused on issues which matter to corporations, not people.
ReplyDeleteYamfood:
ReplyDeleteI am wryly amused that, back in the 19th century, socialists like John Stuart Mill promoted the idea of corporations, and envisioned a future where workers would have a voice regarding how capitalist employers behaved.
I am sadly amused by the fact that Adam Smith expressly advocated for the promotion of not only private property but also the prosperity of the people. The "wealth of nations" is the power of the people to put private property to work. Inherent to this philosophy is that the government must protect the essential cogs of their economic machine -- the people and their property. To do this, the health and welfare of workers must be protected. This is why Smith suggested the government provide public education and health care. Basic economic theory supports this idea, and this is part of the motivation behind Congress's enactment in 1799 of an act to protect the health of sailors. You can read about it here: http://www.common-place.org/vol-09/no-01/rao/.
Here's a choice snippet:
"In 1799 the federal government established these hospitals, or marine hospitals, in most ports throughout the country to care for sick and disabled merchant mariners. The government financed the hospitals by a tax on sailors’ monthly wages. As ships returned to port, customs officials collected the marine hospital tax and forwarded it to the federal Treasury Department in Washington, D.C. The Treasury then distributed these funds to customs officials to hire doctors and nurses to care for merchant mariners. In larger ports, such as Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and New Orleans, the federal government operated its own hospitals. Throughout the nineteenth century the marine hospitals grew westward with the nation. By 1900 the hospitals had treated hundreds of thousands of merchant mariners."
So, I guess we're all bloody socialists in America!