Sunday, March 24, 2013

I have seen the enemy

and he is us.

I wonder if Liberals can claim to be united by mostly by principle, by a shared perspicacity or more by the habit of responding to organized provocation with a conditioned reflex. Certainly the kind of strong legislation designed to regulate behavior we often support and support vehemently isn't liberal in nature. Attempting to regulate what we eat and drink is, for instance, more likely to be supported by Democrats than by Republicans or Conservatives -- and yes, there is a difference. Is the spirit of submission, the tendency to find comfort and a feeling of safety under an umbrella of statutes, regulations, authorities and prohibitions really part of any definition of Liberalism or Liberty, for that matter?

It's not that Republicans are not fond, or even passionate about making certain behaviors disappear by banning, prohibiting and regulating them, but I don't really care about Republicans.  It does no good to argue about full citizenship for fertilized egg cells with people who don't believe in questioning such received certainties and in the long term, being firmly and inexorably on the wrong side of history means we only have to wait them out. Besides, they don't listen to me, so why should I bother telling you who are at least reading this, why the hijacked hulk of the GOP is headed for the rocks. I just want to warn us of the same shoals ahead.

Yes, I think Liberals can be just as intransigent and their positions as unassailable by fact or logic, herded together and immovable like cows in a stream.  Are we really the answer or are we just the opposite polarity of the same thing and just as hide-bound and intransigent; just as beholden to political puppeteers as they are?  When we latch onto a proposed 'solution' we can be just as unable to ask if it is indeed a solution, a workable solution, the only solution and if that solution really addresses real situations, or contrived, conjectural scenarios.  Yes, we have a party that really believes that a vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus will make our daughters into whores -- a belief that is independent of data -- and so we laugh at them.  But then some of us nod our heads in agreement at the notion that Americans, or at least New Yorkers are fatter than we think they should be because, and only because vendors are selling very large containers of soft drinks.  Selling what their customers want because they are greedy. Greedy profiteers for wanting not to be put out of business by someone who offers what they want.

It's that simple post hoc ergo propter hoc thing once again and we go after those mean irresponsible business men who should avoid selling what the 'experts' tell us is bad and we slam that old punching bag once again and forget to ask why we should forbid one source of calories and ignore all the others as though they weren't as much or more significant. I've yet to hear anyone propose rationing fried potatoes or cheese or bacon or mom's apple pie.  "Here's the problem and here's the solution" is all we need to hear and by 'we' I mean everyone.  Have we moored the good ship Liberal to a drifting piling, not attached to anything at all?

Sometimes I think it's what we don't ask that defines our political polarity. When we argued for "55 stay alive"  we didn't ask why the death toll was declining faster in Germany. We didn't ask why we were focusing our safety campaign on the very safest portion of American roads. We didn't even stop to notice that the proposed fuel savings weren't materializing because of all the speeding up and slowing down one had to do to get around the little bunches of cars and trucks the speed limit caused and we fooled ourselves into believing that people really were obeying the law and that we weren't making more and more people into cynical scofflaws and spending a fortune doing it. We were so sure that it was cars and cars alone driving up the cost of fuel that we forgot to regulate trucks and gave birth to the SUV.  Did those third brake lights really do a damned thing to reduce collisions? Have we ever asked?  No, the goal was to pass a safety bill and we did. 

I'm not going into the same phenomenon as it applies to our perennial approach to gun violence or drug usage or any of the other issues that not only separate us from them, but separate us from reality.
Ask yourself, does this incident the media is howling about indicate a headlong descent into chaos, or is it random incident someone wants to use to sell an idea?  Are we getting sold hysteria so as not to care whether something is getting better or worse?  Are we out waving signs and chanting for the weakest, most ill conceived solution to a problem that's not as much of a problem as you think?

Does out ability to know about every meteorite, every earthquake, every school bus accident and every epidemic within seconds and hear about it over and over really indicate some apocalypse is coming and we need to do this or that before it's too late?  Or is someone selling something?

Are we Liberals being used as a foil the way Fox used to use their token Liberal Alan Colmes? Are our scapegoats handed to us to distract us or to make us seem silly and ill informed and who created them?  Will our passionately offered solution really work and will we bother to find out if they have worked after we pass them or if they have worked elsewhere or failed?

Or will we do as we have too often done, smile and nod together like Viziers in some Arabian Night and say "we passed a crime bill"  and move smugly on to some other Crusade that needs to be completed  right now, before the bars close?  Wisdom, I think, comes from asking questions and the wise question their every thought. It's not enough to frolic in criticism of them, to feel superior to those loonies and idiots and crooks and liars.  I've seen the enemy, you know, glaring at me from the bathroom mirror. . .



16 comments:

  1. Capt, my hat is once again tipped. What has happened to the once sensible and more reasonable conservative movement can and possibly will happen to liberalism. Unless of course liberals rediscover what liberalism is really founded in.

    I was a liberal in my twenties, until the liberals begin telling me all about how I ought to live my life and all the justification for following their logic. So I became a rEpublican conservative. Hoping to find classical liberalism in the ranks. Over time I found that I was being told what was right for me all over again. I'm no longer a rEpublican and approve of few conservatives these days.

    So Capt, when does the ship sail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One wonders what you are now when I read on your blog things like: "the Jews went willingly to the gas chambers" and "Obama economics is the same as Hitler economics."
      You need more soul searching RN.

      Delete
  2. Conservative, preservative, liberal, defiberal … all humanoids are natural-born yentas!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I dunno. I'm more cynical every day. Personally, I'm trying to restore the Bull Moose Party and hope to attract the progressives away from the authoritarians.

    The 1912 Roosevelt platform sounds eerily like what was accomplished during the 20th century - eventually. We still need to enact Teddy's campaign financing reform, but when you look at what the Republicans rejected, you don't see that they've changed all that much except for the revival of primitive religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is eerily discomforting to see both the rEpublican and dEmocratic parties so invested in the authoritarian dogma classical liberalism broke violently from in the 18th century.

      As for the revival of primative religion, scary isn't it.

      Perhaps a bit off topic. I'm anticipating a just decision from the Supremes on DOMA and California' s Prop. 8.

      Delete
  4. Hey man,

    For me being a liberal means helping poor people get a hand up. Feeding the elderly. Caring for the sick. Not starting unjust wars. But beyond that, trying to un-perpetuate the military-industrial complex. Promoting world peace by building bridges, feeding and clothing the poor of the world, creating clean water sources, lifting out of poverty and despair. Not building any more nukes. Ever. Safely decommissioning the ones we already have. Mandating energy efficiency. Finding and making more affordable green energy sources. Cutting the belly fat off of the pigs at the trough through government regulation, oversight and enforcement. No more obscene tax breaks for the uber-wealthy. An end to the cult of worshipping money that allowed a piece-of-shit corporate vulture like Romney to be nominated by a major political party. Helping kids go to college. Better per-pupil funding of K-12 schools. Better pay for teachers. Less pay for middle and upper management. An end to the cult of police chiefs and politicians retiring at 120% of their highest pay rate and sticking everyone else with a 403b/401k/Roth. And selling that bullshit in VONS parking lots like Carl DiMaio. Prosecuting white collar crime with the same vigor we prosecute grand larceny and violent crime. Opening the prison doors and letting out all of the non-violent drug offenders. No more felonies and misdemeanors in New York from "stop and frisk." Job counseling and career centers for anybody at all who needs them. And definitely at all high schools, junior colleges and universities. Ensuring safe and fair voting and elections. Protecting the uninsured (or insured) from catastrophic medical bills. I could go on.

    But I get what you are saying Cap. Remember, everything not prohibited is MANDATORY! Liberal totalitarianism forever. And another thing. These misguided efforts to legalize marijuana are a huge and dangerous mistake. Happen to notice that the only thing that is no longer available or legal is fucking seeds, my friend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a lot of progress needed! I may not agree with banning nukes beyond agreeing that they're nightmare scary, but you can't make people not want them unless we have them and I suspect that the main reason the Cold War didn't result in WW III is -- silly as it sounds -- Mutually Assured Destruction.

      Delete
  5. Bottom line for me: I just don't think government is properly in any position to tell you what not to eat and drink, or force you to eat and drink something else.

    It's possible for government to work alongside society in such matters, I suppose, if we can do something like get a clear majority of people to agree that eating garbage is perfectly legal but also that it's obviously both self-destructive and costly to all of us and that, therefore, we really ought to tax our consumption of offal to help pay for the bad consequences of such patterns of consumption. Sort of like cigarette taxes. There's a hint of tyranny even in that, but it isn't on the same order as simply saying, "John and Jane Q. Citizen, you CAN'T have a 64 ounce monster soft drink, or the jumbo order of fries either. Big Brother won't let you do that to yourself."

    So I think you can handle a lot of this stuff with disincentivizing taxes, not bans. The latter go too far and are illiberal no matter how well-intentioned they may be; the former are at least civil (if a bit bossy), customary and respectful of our freedom to make choices even when they're bad ones. "Reason is but choosing," as Milton wrote, and we have to be free to m

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing that the state of New York got right is cigaret taxes. Almost the same as in Great Britain. They are still way too low in California. You can still get Marlboros or Winstons at any gas station or convenience store for about 4 dollars. 12 dollars, one week, you're hooked.

      Smoking rates among teenagers in New York City have fallen to 8.5%. That's really saying something. I was heartbroken but not surprised to discover that one in four high school seniors and one in three young adults smokes in San Diego.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323415304578370931423159620.html

      Delete
    2. I agree. If something is enough of a health hazard to affect health care costs for all of us, by all means tax the hell out of it and apply the revenue to medicare. It has been a better solution to the ever huge burden of alcohol (violent crime and health and accidents, etc.) than Prohibition.

      Delete
  6. Okay, okay, I'll drop my opposition to silo-size soft drinks on one condition. If humanoids stop eating cephalopods and remove them from the dinner menu, I'll camouflage myself into a coral reef and shut up. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh boy - you know you're on every restaurant menu in Florida, don't you?

      Delete
  7. Bad news Octo. I always said you were welcome to visit anytime you were in the midwest. Unfortunately my youngest daughter, who would indeed make any good progressive proud with her views and mostly vegetarian diet for some reason loves calamari and octopus. They have it at a local Italian place called Tiramisu. Eats that stuff like popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It has been a better solution to the ever huge burden of alcohol (violent crime and health and accidents, etc.) than Prohibition."

    I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that in states like NY (where I live) the taxes on cigarettes are approximately 65% of the selling price. If alcohol was taxed at the same rate, a six pack of Bud would run around $14-16.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Comparing beer to cigarettes stretches my math skills. I'm just willing to bet that booze and smokes cause more harm than Mountain dew, personally and collectively and equally as willing to bet that it's easier to control things by taxing them and regulating them than banning them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tyranny has many faces and forms. Anything in excess has the potential to become precisely that. Classical Liberalism 101...

      Delete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.