Cognitive Dissonance: Conservatives and Government

Tags

allure, allure of government, America, American government, anarchist, anarchists, anarchy, atheism, atheist, atheists, Ayn Rand, Bible, campaigns, Capitol Hill, cognitive dissonance, communism, communitarianism, congress, conservatism, conservative, conservatives, D.C., DC, demographics, demography, diversity, E.P.A., elections, entitlement programs, entitlements, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equality, federal government, food stamps, freedom, gay marriage, governing, government, Grover Norquist, gun control, guns, health, health care, healthcare, Henry David Thoreau, hypocrisy, ideology, Kryptonite, laws, Leviathan, libertarian, libertarianism, libertarians, limited government, local government, marriage equality, media, National Parks, Norquist, On Walden Pond, politics, power, Rand, religion, reproductive rights, S.N.A.P., safety, same sex marriage, secular, secularism, secularist, secularists, security, self reliance, small government, smaller government, SNAP, social security, socialism, society, stability, state, state government, states, taxes, Thoreau, U.S., U.S. Government, united states, United States Government, US, US Government, Walden, Walden Pond, Washington, Washington D.C., Washington DC, white house, women's rights

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

A City Upon a Hill

Tags

Allegory of the Cave, barack obama, biden, bill maher, bullying, City Upon a Hill, darkness, democrats, diplomacy, economy, email, example, fundraising, gay marriage, gay rights, joe biden, John Lauber, Lauber, light, Maher, Maurice Freehill, media, media coverage, mitt romney, move on, moveon.org, news, obama, Plato, politics, president obama, progress, republicans, respect, romney, same sex marriage, school, social media, society, The Washington Post, vice president biden, William Winthrop, youth

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”.  Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis.  To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later),  Obama echoed Biden’s stance.  A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story.  In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair.  This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life.  Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being.  Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself.  I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”.  Why is it a gaffe?  Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president?  Biden spoke his mind.  He was not offensive.  It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something.  He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself.  Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment.  Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work.  If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good.  Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans,  passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned.  K, well, you snooze, you lose.  A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives.  Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment?  Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well.  Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more.  Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment.  The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country.  All’s well that ends well, right?  Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time.  5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader.  They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized.  In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”.  Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem.  He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way.  He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident.  The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats.  It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw.  It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion.  The email was entitled “Dark Incident”.  This email was a dark incident.  Way to be unprofessional.  The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information.  The organization does not need to do that.  The story speaks for itself.  Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite.  Society is always in flux.  We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions.  Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off.  The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens.  It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe.  In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”  And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal.  We all should.