Watch the libs try to jump on this one, too.
And it's not just Bono, either. John F-bomb Kerry has, as a Massachusetts resident, the opportunity to pay a higher rate of taxes than what the law requires--just check a box on the tax return. He does not do so.
14 comments:
As a mainly liberally oriented person, I am glad you brought this up because it seemingly underscores a huge hypocrisy. I applaud the richer conservatives who give tons of more money—Carnegie’s gospel of wealth in action at its finest. I frown on the fact liberals do not (especially rich liberals. AHH). I adore that these well-off conservatives pour their money into such good causes, and, please, no matter what, keep doing so. Still, as a liberally oriented person, I cannot believe that I am raising this point (not a statement or denial of belief): Republicanism, the ideological paradigm of conservatives, believes in representative government—a government that enacts the will of the public. Thus, when the electorate votes for certain taxes and for certain programs to be funded, should not those things be the priority over what the philanthropists want to give to (this does not mean I want them to stop). Nonetheless, it makes me feel empowered, as a voter, that my government sought to pay for the programs the voting electorate approved of. My ultimate point is this. The money to pay for these programs comes from some very unpopular taxes, including those on the rich who were so kind to be charitable, but with tax cuts, among other things (bad bureaucracy) programs are not funded. Thus, a richer, mainly male, mainly white, conservative group helps tremendously when they give so much while a mainly middle-class and poor liberal group of people seem so stingy (even if they cannot afford it) thus leaving the rich liberals looking rather hypocritical and representative of all liberals. I am sure there are many conservatives that embarrass you (e.g. Foley) as there are many liberals that embarrass me. Still, you raise a great question that has no easy answer! Perhaps, there are good things conservatives do and not all liberals disdain the virtues of Republicanism as a philosophy? Perhaps we all take from both paradigms, although obviously at different and various levels.
John S, thank you for your very thoughtful commentary.
My objection to having the government do so much is twofold. First, that people who grow dependent on government don't learn to take care of themselves anymore, and second, that the inner good that comes from demonstrating personal generosity and charity is perverted when people are compelled to do so. It's similar to my objection to mandating "community service" as a high school graduation requirement--you aren't really "serving" if you're compelled to do so.
John S--I'm not sure the discrepency can be put down to conservatives being richer. There are whole industries which have large numbers of wealthy liberals: entertainers are probably 90% liberal, advertising I would be is over 50%, and even finance has a fair number. Also, university professors are reliably liberal, and tenured professors are mostly upper middle class (though not usually upper-upper middle class)
This would seem like an easy thing to analyze; I wonder if anyone has done it.
The "rich conservative" myth is just that. A myth. But this study is merely common sense, again validated by research: Those who believe that charity is the obligation of the individual and church -- conservatives -- are more likely to feel obliged to give; while those who believe that charity is the obligation of the state are not.
"My objection to having the government do so much is twofold. First, that people who grow dependent on government don't learn to take care of themselves anymore"
We saw that with Katrina, which did every bit as much damage in Mississippi as it did NO. Yet, in Mississippi, the people did for themselves, instead of sitting around waiting for the goverment to come save them. And the reason for the difference is people who do for themselves v. people who depend on the government.
Great point, I never thought about it in the terms various people have expressed. Still, I do not think that people who are dependent on the government cannot take care of themselves. The Katrina example, while evoking powerful images is not a very good example because it relies on an emotionally charged case sample that fails to address the larger issue (w/ problems of typicality and rarity). This does not help us understand either the crippling or the advantageous affect of government on human behavior because it alone cannot serve as an archetype for understanding the questions we have raised. Sure, on one hand, we all are dependent on the government. Bill Gates relies on the government for national security and for securing and aiding markets for him to conduct his business. If one takes capitalism to be the savior of our modern society then surely we all rely on government providing us access to its benefits. Still, I think you are alluding to people that rely on the government at a far deeper level. I think that government’s job is to take care of its people and fix social and economic problems. Yet, we obviously disagree on the role of government as well as our conception of human nature that highlights the fact we probably will not agree (but at least we stimulated thought). I do not think government intervention causes over dependence (in general) and stunts humans’ desire or ability to take care of themselves. I think people, in general, desire to do so, but cannot always, thus, they need help. I understand countless examples exist of people who abuse the system and are over dependent. I feel, however, a deeper problem is at work in our society that fostered this situation. What it is and how to fix it, I have no easy answer. Still, I hold steadfast next to the idea that government’s role in our society is to help take care of all its citizens because, selfishly, my best interest, both economically and socially, is served. Likewise, I do not believe that if you taxed a rich person it would pervert her generosity. I do not understand why taxation is seen as forced. It is the law of the land, the political economy we all live in, and a fact. Could not a rich person feel an inner good knowing that her taxes help pay for some programs that her fellow citizens voted in because they collectively thought they were important? In the end, while we disagree and my answer will no doubt leave you all unsatisfied, thank you for forcing me to think more clearly about why I thought the way I did and providing me with a forum for trying (poorly) to articulate it.
In addition, I cannot ignore some of the themes I noticed in these posts (which I am under no delusion I interpreted correctly). On one hand, we discover the theme of capitalism permeating society as a pervasive and positive force. Likewise, we have a notion of individualism and religion affecting people’s behavior in a positive light. Yet, on the other hand, the notion of government permeating society is cast in a negative mold. While it may be easy to organize thought on seemingly absolutes, it does not seemingly underscore the rather complexity of the situation. For example, the rightwingprof neatly assigned the difference between Mississippi and Louisiana in terms of those who are dependent on government versus those who do for themselves. This does not allow for a notion that people in Louisiana were trying to do for themselves. I do not think that is true. Likewise, the notion that capitalism is an all pervasive positive force negates the very real problems also found in the capitalist system, such as exploitation, alienation, widening gaps in class power, and the damage to our environment that many have done in the name of capitalist entrepreneurship. I am certainly no Marxist, however, because I can likewise argue for many of the benefits that capitalism brings. This is only to suggest that none of these forces are entirely good or bad, all pervasive or minimal. This leads me to the role of the government. The statistics and issues that Allen brought to light are glowing endorsements against a liberal leviathan government bent on a social welfare state. I’ll have to consider that.
I am sorry to have written so much—my lack of brevity and verbosity points to my ideas not having a good sound base and indicate they are wrong because they require so much discussion.
John S., are you kidding? You've written so much, obviously disagreeing with some of what's been written by me and by other commenters, and you haven't resorted to sound bytes or cliches or name-calling or any of the other trash that so often passes for "discourse" in blog comments.
I thank you for your thoughtful, if long, commentary! Don't feel the need to be brief if writing/speaking/thinking logically here.
"Still, I do not think that people who are dependent on the government cannot take care of themselves."
It's not cannot; it's will not.
After all, why would I take care of myself like an adult if I felt that I were entitled to be cared for? And if I had been cared for all my life, why would I change?
Poverty had nothing to do with it, nor did race. Government dependency did.
You talk in absolutes and universal truths that do not allow for temporal or situational pressures or realities thus I do not think we will come to any of the same conclusions. Still, I do understand your point and think it has some type of merit worthy of consideration wherein dependency is a strangling pervasive force that limits people’s actions and thoughts. That people will not versus they cannot is a huge claim and I would like to hear more about how you arrived at such two seemingly polarized ends with no allowance for other forces at work? Certainly, a lofty claim and I am intrigued.
Allen had so many good points it is hard to address them all so I’ll take on one right now: “. . . it's capitalism that's improved the lot of poor people by relentlessly driving down the cost of the necessities as well as the luxuries.”
This is very interesting concept of capitalism you are proposing. I am not quite sure how you are defining the term capitalism and whether it does what you think. Namely, is capitalism defined as wage labor (Marxist), something in circularity/interaction with cultural norms (ambiguous; Weberian), or a more modern definition of production for market (which places capitalistic activity back thousands of years). Still, your result that poor people’s lot improves cannot result from capitalism as an economic model (as cause). Capitalism as an ideal type of economy, the one that Marx, Weber, and others analyzed, seeks profit, gain, and wealth and naturally exploits and causes a widening gap of rich and poor. Nevertheless, we find such critiques passé because we do not see such hard line exploitation, in their terms, evident in American society. So, what can we conclude? That America is not purely capitalistic and that the economic model of a society is not the only thing that drives, impacts, limits, expands, etc. the economy. We need to think of the term political economy. We see moral philosophy and public policy also at work influencing the economy and society. In the U.S., we have democracy (a multifarious term) and Protestantism (again multifarious and meant here in terms of the dominant moral philosophy) at work along with capitalism to determine the nature of our economy, not to mention various other forces. So that poor people’s lot is improved is actually antithetical to the spirit of capitalism we must recognize these other forces interacting with the economic model of capitalism to achieve your result here in the U.S. For example, what has been the result of capitalistic activity in other countries that do not have a similar public policy and moral philosophy like the U.S.? Exploitation and poor little kids working in sweat shops. That the plight of the poor has not improved is not surprising given the increase in markets, access to market, participants in markets, etc. That the U.S. has been able to keep exploitation and the poor increasing astronomically is something that is worth noting. I think this has been the legacy of both parties from the Republican Theodore Roosevelt to LBJs Great Society. Government has been crucial in addressing the plight of the poor through its public policies and capitalism alone is not the answer.
Off to go home for Thanksgiving! Hope everyone and theirs have a great holiday, thanks for putting up with my nonsense thus far and, hopefully, I can return to the “blogging” world another day in the near future.
Great points, however, your idea of capitalism being voluntary is interesting and perhaps very modern. Still, what do you mean by value? Sorry to be semantic, but voluntary exchange of value could be equated to redistributive economies and very representative of barter economies as well and not exclusive to capitalism by a mile. Indeed, a voluntary exchange of value occurred when a farmer went to market with his pig and exchanged it for clothes. In addition, your idea of voluntary needs a little more for me to understand. What is voluntary as opposed to necessity, function, or usefulness? That is, does someone exchange in the market because she needs to eat versus wanting a big screen TV?
Lastly, how voluntary are poor people in what they have to exchange as compared to why they need to. In other words, what do they possibly have to voluntarily exchange? Obviously, they have their power of labor. Capitalism would seek to secure their power of labor in accordance with maximizing surplus value, correct—I think that is called a law of something? But, again, how voluntary is that? What you, seemingly, think is capitalism (I’m sure I interpreted it wrong), first, can seemingly be defined as true to other types of economies and, second, does not adequately account for other forces in society that impact the economy. Why would there be a big to-do about who served in government, i.e. Republican or Democrat, if public policy does not influence the health of the economy. I guess, I have as much of a problem with you discussing Capitalism in terms of an ideal type that is narrow and not real like you might point to my conception of the government bureaucracy as an ideal type to help the plight of its citizens. Oh, the result of Capitalistic activities in other countries, particularly third world countries, has not been undoubtedly good and has led to some vast human rights atrocities that even some conservatives here could probably cite for us (because they would want to celebrate American democracy and superiority of moral philosophy to differentiate America!).
Oh, for “mid-ninteenth century psuedo-scientist with a flair for the dramatic” reference to Marx you got some merit. I did not find Marx too dramatic though, verbose yes, but not dramatic. Perhaps the manifesto was, I’ll grant you that. Have you actually ever read him or anything other than the manifesto? Also, Freud? I have never really read Freud myself. Sorry, I know that sounds horrible, but I just read Marx in detail for the first time several months ago yet I have always talked about Marx and others before that because they have come so prepackaged. Also, while I agree they are passé, you point to their limitations but then praise Thomas Paine from the seventeenth century as insightful. Which I am taking that his disdain for religion as something you agree is insightful? Likewise, as a pragmatic libertarian then I am correct you are for state’s rights over a strong central authority? Actually, let me ask some ridiculous rhetorically fun questions: Would you agree Lincoln committed an illegal act by enacting a war with state’s that constitutionally seceded from the union? That California’s medicinal marijuana law should not be made illegal or hampered in any way by the national government? Gay marriages in any states that may legalize them are okay because we should not have too large of a national government. Libertarian, while conservative constitutionally means you must be, somewhat I guess, liberal when it comes to social action (as long as it does not hurt someone) as I am sure you are a champion of Locke’s natural rights (though he’s passé too, right?).
Hey, I’m bringing ham to Thanksgiving regardless of what anyone says. Best.
Oh, Paine was 18th century--sorry brain fart. Heck, I am currently in my old room at my mom's house, I think its the 1980s.
Also, have been rude to keep citing what I disagree with or am finding hard to understand in your comments. Let me say you are right on with your "psudeo-scientific" statement and I too find the chicken a far more tasty bird.
"That people will not versus they cannot is a huge claim and I would like to hear more about how you arrived at such two seemingly polarized ends with no allowance for other forces at work?"
Because there is nothing complex or nuanced about the ridiculous idea that we are all mindless robots at the mercy of external forces. It's drivel. Those people in NO have just as much free will as the people in Mississippi. The hurricane warnings were out well in advance. The people in Mississippi left. The people in NO chose not to leave. The people in Mississippi who were caught helped themselves and their neighbors. The people in NO who were caught sat around and whined about where was the federal government.
The failure of a government institution was no surprise to conservatives. Of course, the FEMA response fell short; it's a government program. It was only a scandal to those who believe in the government fairy, and think that contrary to all history, some government program somewhere will be more efficient than the private sector.
And all that federal money that went for wine, crack, whores, and that family that accepted a house from a church then turned around and sold it for the money, well, we won't go there, other than there's the effect the "I'm entitled" mentality has on personal responsibility, morals, and ethics.
Allen,
Wow, I greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness, kindness, and extent behind your comments. Still, I feel rather like an idiot because I just do not get it. I am sorry I am so dense but I cannot understand your definition of capitalism (voluntary exchange of value). It seems, to me, your definition is more akin to a definition of economy in general rather than capitalism in particular as evidenced by your notion that barter economies have a capitalistic nature. At one point, you talk about human rights abuses predating capitalism (can human rights abuses occur in a capitalistic society, i.e. what do you make of civil rights in the U.S.). Here, you give capitalism a notion of having a beginning. Elsewhere I find that you see capitalism as having an ontological perpetual nature through your very definition itself as well as your inclination that barter economies are capitalistic. I never heard that before (I do not get out much). I always understood them to be distinct systems that, while certainly having similarities, were separate. The farmer going to market fits your definition because your definition of capitalism more correctly defines the economy. Yet, I find nothing capitalistic about what they did (I am dense I know)—it seems more of a subsistence-plus existence. (Likewise, your definition of value seems logical. Yet, it too seems like an umbrella term. Can something have value if only one person finds value in it? You favor, seemingly, exchange value and not personal use value). My definition of capitalism, which will have hundreds of holes, is a system that includes all of the following: wage-labor, production for market, and the accumulation of wealth for wealth’s sake. My definition most certainly excludes my poor example of the farmer with his pigs. Bartering does not seek wealth for wealth’s sake (even if it does occur). A capitalist would come to the market, buy the pig, and then sell the pig, hopefully, for profit. That is, M-C-M+/- (money for commodity for money) versus C-C (exchange of commodity for commodity) or even C-M-C (exchange of commodity for money to buy another commodity). Consequently, most of what you discuss is hard for me to get because I do not understand your definition of capitalism and how it thus differs from other systems (thus I cannot comment in full on every quality point you made). We both agree other forces influence the economy, which was one of my original points, but we disagree about which force does what. Ultimately, I surmise neither of us can prove satisfactorily that one force is more positive or negative than the other (we would have to be omnipotent). Still, for clarification, I think you see capitalism as a positive force while I see it as a neutral force with both positive and negative outcomes. You cast capitalism (which, again, I do not understand your definition) in the mold of a positive force in regards to our discussion of the plight of the poor while I see it as antithetical to the plight of the poor and that other forces (such as Democracy and Protestantism) have interacted with capitalism to produce the current state of affairs in the United States. I guess we will have to employ the old axiom to agree to disagree.
Rightwingprof,
Huh? You have government dependency as the force for explaining why people failed to act in New Orleans while you then proclaim that “there is nothing complex or nuanced about the ridiculous idea that we are all mindless robots at the mercy of external forces. It's drivel.” Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Either the people have free will or they were dependent on the government. Likewise, how much free will does a person have when they have no control of those social forces of culture, biological forces, or those mute forces of nature? I am no structuralist, but I am no existentialist either. Rather, I think it is far more “complex and nuanced” and that individual human agency, independent of forces, interacts with the very real forces that affect people’s behavior. Race did play a part. Government dependency did play a part. The social milieu did play a part. Many forces, external and internal, played a part. Autonomous human decisions also played a part seemingly to a fault in New Orleans compared to elsewhere. Still, some in New Orleans did act and were not dependent on government. That all in New Orleans supposedly did the same thing points more accuratley to your belief in forces affecting people's actions than people having free will.
Actully, I probably just don't understand what you are getting at.
Post a Comment