Only occasionally do I post something about political issues.
Generally I find most of my ‘friends’ and ‘enemies’ are pretty set in their views about what is going on in our country, and the purpose of MillersTime is not to add to the disharmony that seems so present these day.
But when I do come across something that I find ‘of interest’ and think it may be equally so to others in both the categories mentioned above, I do post it in The Outer Loop and/or Articles of Interest sections of MillersTime.
And so today’s post of an article by Alec
David Stephenson said:
Thanks, Richard. That really was thought-provoking. Given the degree of income inequality today, it’s understandable that those who’ve worked so hard to reach the middle tier — those deputy sheriffs and others he mentioned — would be angry at those who they see as exploiting government aid without lifting a finger themselves. At the same time, so many of those people at the bottom (think those black men who were given hefty sentences for minor drug offenses and now can’t get legit jobs because of the resultant records) really don’t have the tools or breaks to work their way up. Is it too hopelessly idealistic to wish for a real national dialogue in which we’d really examine all of these issues and try to cobble together some sort of combination of income redistribution/job and attitudinal skill training/personal responsibility/compassion that would allow us to build a society and economy where everyone would at least have the basics? I’m the perpetual optimist, but sometimes I think, OMG, it’s 2015 and we as Americans and as a species haven’t progressed more than this? Oh well, back to the trenches.
Land Wayland said:
Those on the bottom of the ladder have always been very worried, indeed quietly terrified about the extreme precariousness of their economic situation, wondering on a daily basis where they would go and what they would do if the flimsy legs on which the ladder stands should collapse.
They see that there are those all around them who would take their jobs or, worse yet, eliminate their jobs. They see themselves as being surrounded by far too many who know more, have higher skills, talk better, think clearer, are better looking, and laugh easier than they do…and they are often correct
They realized in fifth or sixth grade that they would not be the winners in life and also realized that there is little they can do to ever improve their lot. They understand very little and are afraid of everything.
It takes very little to raise in their minds the specter of imminent disaster which makes them the perfect target for negative political campaigning. They can easily be persuaded to vote against programs or candidates or proposals that are presented as being confusing or dangerous or taking away what little good that remains. Positive campaigning does not work very well since so many of these voters see so little hope in life that they are very skeptical about voting in favor of anything because they just don’t believe it will help or will come true.
When the Republicans started their “anti everything” campaign, they knew exactly what they were doing. By presenting the entire world as collapsing and every idea that was offered to save it as being fatally flawed, they confirmed to these folks that even those “in the know” were convinced that things are becoming more unsettled, more dangerous, and more difficult to fix and that the only hope of returning to the perfect days of yore is to choose leaders whose only promise is to stamp out these evils and who have given little thought to trying to create ways of preventing their return.
Today the angst levels are rising. The computer invasion has now eliminated many low skill jobs. The coming robot invasion will eliminate many many more. People are living longer but their ability to provide for their future continues to shrink. Pollution and species extinction and climate change and over-population and traffic congestion and deadly viruses and terrorist attacks and family disintegration are changing the entire planet and nothing seems to be able to stop anything. There are deadly dangers everywhere that used to be safe (movie theaters, schools, sidewalk cafes, parks, music concerts, church) and those who are creating these dangers are often unknown, unreasonable, and unaffected by the misery they create.
So they heed those who would lead the few who want to survive, to safety even if it means voting for the nay-sayer, for the wall builder, for the candidate who wants to close down, who wants to retreat because he knows where he is not going, but does not know where he is going, who knows what he is against but does not know what he is for, who is overwhelmed by the complexity of the present that he sees little hope for the future except by living inside an armed fort with thousand foot high titanium walls.
Since there are so many who would be leaders who are saying NO to everything, things will continue to evolve by natural selection instead of by social engineering.
Land Wayland
Carrie said:
Maybe the change in direction also has to do with other aspects of the political situation.More people that I know feel that the government no longer protects us and makes our lives better. Decisions are based on the whims of politicians and not on what the people want for themselves. There will always be a legitimate need for a safety net but
passing thousands of regulations and making it hard for small businesses , has eradicated many small businesses that would hire less educated people.
Many of us feel that we cannot weed out the lies from the truth anymore.
Anonymous said:
Land Wayland describes well people who have been clinically depressed from early childhood. He and the author of Richard’s-referenced NYT article describe the context which has fated these impoverished people to a lifetime of depression and addiction, including addiction to social aid. Most of these addicted and hopeless people live in the states of the Confederacy, and the border states. During those early times many rural poor whites were enlisted by the slave owners to fight to preserve their slave power. They stigmatized the US forces as coming to take away their rights. In fact, these poor whites had few rights, except the right to scratch out a meager survival on their marginal dirt farms. These poor whites believed what the slave owners told them: if the slaves were free they would take what chances were available to advance. The poor white soldiers of the Confederacy, under the propaganda of the slave owner class, fought not only to keep the African American people enslaved, but for their own shabby chances to advance.
This legacy endures. Since Barry Goldwater the Republican Party has stopped calling itself the Party of Lincoln (who was for the universal right to rise, and for equality). The Republican Party has for the past half century continued the class warfare of the Confederacy. It employs new tactics for the old agenda: get those below who vote to defend the interests of the exploiting class.
Anon-2 said:
Thank you Richard!
A lot of pearl-clutching on the left these days as the country turns more red by the day…..if not for government unions owning the political machine, there wouldn’t BE any “blue states” left.
One thing that those on the left don’t realize, that this article demonstrates but doesn’t state explicitly: even the most knuckle-dragging conservative WANTS there to be a safety net….but for those who NEED it. In other words, EVERYONE wants to HELP PEOPLE WHO CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES….and it’s the people who HAVE been helped, and no longer need the help, that see the abuse and reliance on these safety nets by those not making any effort to escape.
In fact, those many who have used these programs to escape bad situations have first hand knowledge and understanding that many programs are designed to KEEP people addicted to them in the first place.
A thought provoking piece worth looking at:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/11/3/no-subject-generates-more-ignorance-than-poverty
Thank you again for posting Richard; you are correct, we are all set in our ways, but at least we can see how other thoughtful people look at these issues. I might suggest that Anonymous makes an insulting and divisive use metaphor of the Confederacy. Any honest person can find just as much institutional racism in Boston as they can in Dothan. I might suggest, as I have in the past on this board, that it’s actually the statist politicians (particularly on the left) that is the party of the confederacy. They wanted blacks in chains 150 years ago, and they still want them in metaphorical chains today via entitlements…..so that they can continue to be picked up in a town car every night and be driven to Mortons to dine.