Come on, give it to me.
My friend sent me a link to this article. As I read it, I was busy picking apart these statistics in my head, and the way they’re communicated. The use of qualitative words, for example, next to numbers, sways the impression of that number. This criticism is more about the article and less about the content.
Content-wise, I have more to say.
It’s interesting to me that, for example, it seems some politicians are interested in putting all these rules in place (“abortion is illegal”, “gays in the military are illegal”, “birth control is illegal”) but it seems that the enforcement of those rules is not in their mind because wouldn’t that require more government and aren’t some of those same politicians against that? I was getting all twisted up on the ride in yesterday because (as an example) they* were talking about the safety and efficacy of drugs, and I can’t see how we can have less government and yet ensure the safety and efficacy of both US and foreign made drugs. When you’re not talking about safety explicitly, say you’re talking about quality of business practices (i.e. whether you make a habit of screwing over the consumer), then some politicians are quick to say less government is good and just let the capitalist market govern the businesses - people will realize they’re getting screwed over and then the company will go under because no one will use them. Well how many “innocent” people get screwed before that happens? And how do you define “innocent”? And is it the government’s job to protect people from getting screwed over in the first place? Does screwing people over necessarily have to be a crime or is that just a hard life lesson? But then isn’t it a burden on the government when all of these people are broke and living on the streets because they got themselves into debt up to their eyeballs and foreclosed on their house and declared bankruptcy? So is it more cost effective to spend on prevention or clean-up? Now make the same argument for drugs… now you’re talking LIFE not MONEY .. how many people have to DIE before the capitalist market brings down the company?
See, that’s where I get all twisted up with the whole conservative/liberal thing. On the one hand I’m still the starry-eyed twenty-something who thinks it’s great to take care of everyone and make sure everyone has every opportunity to make something of themselves no matter what their background… so that’s the ideal view of liberals… everyone takes care of everyone, by way of the government ensuring that everyone is taken care of. On the other hand I’m this tight-fisted, I work hard for my money, principled, thirty-something, who wants the government to get the hell out of my life, my business, and my pockets… but the thing is, when it comes to taking care of everyone, that’s an idealist attitude too! Let me explain:
Because I don’t think conservatives are hard-hearted people, I think they realize that there are some people out there that simply need to be taken care of, either because they’ve fallen on hard times that are not their fault, or they simply don’t function at the same level as the general population which is also not their fault, or we’re talking about the elderly or the young or the sick who can’t take care of themselves which is also not their fault! But it seems to me, in talking to lots of conservatives (I live in Texas), when you use the “it takes a village” mentality and expect them to be ok with government spending to protect those people, the common response is “let me decide where to put my money”… in other words that charity is great, but not FORCED charity (i.e. taxes). Unfortunately my starry-eyed idealism does not extend into this realm, simply because I’ve done too much observing of my peers and neighbors when it comes to charity in particular (charitable donations and volunteering) and frankly I’m not impressed with the upper-middle-class right now, I don’t actually believe if the government stopped taking their money away to take care of others, that they would turn around and put their extra money into charities - I think they’d keep it for themselves. So the choice is then between being forced to take care of others (taxes) - and possibly in ways you don't morally agree with (see the minefields of healthcare, education, abortion, death penalty, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. etc.), and no one being taken care of (no taxes).
It’s just hard. And I think so hard about it and get all twisted up and then I don’t vote because there’s no perfect answer.
The end. L
*Diane Rehm Show on NPR