Today I ran to the store for dinner and flipped on the radio. This time, I tried to find football on the radio too, but ended up flipping through AM. Yeah, it sucks. Horrible. As bad as Christian radio is--and it is horrible--conservative talk radio is worse. I think conservatives all owe us an apology for Rush Limbaugh and all the local idiot duplicates he spawned. These people are idiots who simply repeat lies and take calls that repeat those lies. Liberals may have some blogs that do that (though conservatives are well represented there), but there is nothing outside Air America that even comes close to what dominates the bulk of AM radio. I don't want to hear a word about a "liberal media" after listening to this stuff!
But in all seriousness, conservative talk radio repeats a lot of what conservatives believe. And much of that needs to be addressed.
It seems to me that conservatives, for the most part, are well-intentioned people. But to hoe to the conservative line, they have to believe a couple of assumptions--assumptions that I think are false.
1) the first is the belief in the level playing field--or at least the belief that hard work and effort will ameliorate any inequalities that exist. I think this is the foundation for most of the beliefs that racism is not a problem. If you really believe racism is a problem, hard to believe the playing field is level.
2) and even more important, is the belief in the "bootstrap myth." This, best articulated by Horatio Alger, is the idea that every American, if they work hard and apply themselves, they can work their way out of poverty and into wealth.
3) (and all of these are related) Listening to Faux News the other night, and talk radio today, a common refrain is that liberals want to just give "hand outs" to the poor. The poor, goes the reasoning, would assert themselves more if they had to, and, as I heard on the radio today, the only way to self-fullfilment was to "get your hands dirty" and work. No other way.
4) and the corrollary of point 3 is that people who have money and wealth had to "work" for it. According to this view, their wealth is "theirs" and "theirs alone."
There is much here that strikes me as false, and also strikes me as problematic. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that the playing field is level. Race, class, misfortune, etc., all play into changing the landscape we all play in.
The bootstrap myth is hard to refute. It certainly is not the norm, and we all know that the exception does not disprove the rule. The fact that most people born into poverty don't get out of it is still the problem. It also assumes that these people in poverty aren't working, or aren't working hard enough. This annoys me to no end. The working poor often work more than one job and have no benefits. They have no assets, limited access to capital, etc.
And point 4 is the worst. George Bush is the perfect example of point 4. He didn't work for his wealth. Nor his position. Nor his power. He went to a private prep school--not because of his merit or hard work, but because of his family name. He attended Yale and owned businesses and was elected Governor and President because of his family name and power.
But it goes beyond Bush. Many middle class conservatives believe they have earned every bit of their wealth--because they have never taken a welfare check. Yet, (and I am a great example of this) many recieve state subsidized education, benefit from state subsidized highways and transportation, have benefited from state employment or contracts. Not to say there isn't effort involved--but neither is it self-effort alone.
Yet, liberals like myself are not advocating a window where people just receive a bag o' cash. We want assistance that enables people to advance. That means job training, and access to health care and capital and education.
But I understand. It is much easier to support lower taxes and demonize the poor if you think that the poor deserve being poor. But people need to understand what they are arguing.
4 comments:
Why did so many non-slave owners fight and die in the Civil War? They were fighting for an institution that they didn't even get the benifits from.
Why are the dirt poor red necks buying this bootstrap philosophy and voting for the people openly stacking the deck against them?
Answer to both questions: False Hope, that maybe they will one day be the lucky ones that can get enough money to buy a slave, or they will win the lottery, or make the Pros, or, or, or
Streak, I agree - Randy Cross sucks and your post was excellent. Wait, did I say that last thing? Seriously, that was a great post.
-- CIL
part of the problem is perception. everyone belives that their own handouts or privileges are "earned" or "deserved" while others get theirs for free.
so it is that when the govt practically gives away public assets; airwaves, land, etc.. its never seen as part of the welfare system. but checks for food for the poor people are making them dependent.
there's welfare for the rich and there's welfare for the poor. much of what the rich get are plum contracts for their corporate entities, and hence, nice stock payouts. Just take a look at the biggest corporations in America and see just how many get money from the government. but much of that is called "helping the economy", not welfare.
Access to health care is a great benefit and I hope everyone would take advantage of it as we are in a major health care crisis.
Post a Comment