A Quick Rant II plus an argument

Well, as you might imagine, the message in last piece did nothing to sway the "libertarian" with whom I was in dialog. It seems to me that choosing the solutions to the problems of society, any society, requires an understanding of politics, business, people, government, and philosophy. Some understanding of science and statistics wouldn't hurt either.

Now, I don't expect everyone to believe that. But, its hard to understand how many people believe that a broad understanding of society and the arts is unnecessary. I wonder if some of them don't feel without the gifts to attain that understanding, and so chose to make decisions ignorantly - and defend those decisions. But, I'm not sure because some of these folks seem reasonably intelligent even when they're naive.

I'm sure I was overly ambitious and way too impatient with my erstwhile correspondent. But, it was amazing how he responded. He allowed a couple of small points, ignored most of my arguments, and resorted to name calling. Oh, and he blamed the democrats for the Kelo vs. New London decision. We do share a distaste for that decision.

After that, I took a good long time responding. My response was fairly brief. But, I noted that Kelo vs New London was function of a court with only 2 justices appointed by democrats. And, that Rehnquist has a record of eroding personal rights and championing the interests of big business.

He maintained his position, noting that all the democrats voted for New London, but that Rehnquist and three other republicans voted for Kelo - hence it was the democrats fault. He didn't bother to notice that the majority of the majority (a favored republican ideal) voted for Kelo. So, does he get it?

I haven't bother to look up the language of the opinions to see what the turning points were in this case. And, it certainly wouldn't make any sense to discuss that level of detail when the argument presented is so moronic. Nor does it make sense to point out that Rehnquist has a record of changing his vote to the majority in order that he may write their opinion where he wants to ameliorate the impact of decisions that he doesn't like. So, why didn't he do this with Kelo vs. New London if he was so concerned.

No, nothing will get through this fellows thick skull. If any democrats voted for the decision, then its their fault, all their fault, and only their fault. Got it?

My correspondent also suggested that all government is corrupt and messes up everything it touches. Hence, we must not let it touch important things like healthcare.

This is an argument that is so simplistic as to be dangerous. And, it fits as part of the pattern of right wing smears and confusion. The republicans have long been smearing government, especially the federal government, portraying it as a bad thing: ineffective, inefficient, corrupt.

Mind you, it would be Pollyannish to think any government is perfect - because it is an institution of mankind and mankind is imperfect. By estension, this argument extends to businesses, non-profit organizations, churches, schools, and social clubs.

The republicans long-standing attack on the federal government has had several effects:

1. People start to believe these stories uncritically - and the stories are supported and embellished by people who need to blame something or someone.
2. With belief comes distrust. More malice is seen in the federal government and people become encouraged not to respect and support, but to teardown our government. This strikes me as both unpatriotic and unhealthy for all citizens.
3. As the republicans come into power, it puts them at risk. So far they've been allowed to talk the talk but take a different walk. That won't last. And then citizens are likely to say: see, we even put the republicans in power and we still can't get a good federal government. Little do they realize, that by putting the republicans into power, they short-circuited a good government - and created their own problem.
4. Related to this, as people come to distrust government, along with science, they are left with only voodoo - or religion. This isn't meant to pick on organized religion, but is a reflection that there isn't a very good track record behind religion in government. And, that the track-record has nothing to do with democracy. So, perhaps the good republicans have brought our society to the point where they are ready to renounce democracy. While people will say no, it appears that they only like democracy when it supports there views. And rather than have spirited intelligent debate, they look for ways to short circuit democracy to hold sway.

You wouldn't know from the republicans that Social Security and Medicare are highly regarded around the world as models for how to efficiently and effectively provide assistance. No, that wouldn't server there arguments or their interests.

There's an interesting article at: http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=83 about how two christian evangelists are trying to take over the state republican party in Ohio. They quote the Reverend Rod Parsley as saying: Americans must be "....Christocrats..... And that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy..... That means God is in control, and you are not." By the way, the reverand Rod is aligned with J. Kenneth Blackwell - yeah the guy who orchestrated the theft of the Ohio election.

Moving back to my correspondent, he isn't too worried about religion in government. His framing was that he's agnostic (which strikes me as a cowards position), but that he isn't disturbed by "...in God we trust..." Hence, if he has to chose between lower taxes and God in government, he'll take the latter. He couldn't even consider that now that the church is on the dole, taxes can only go up. Nor, can he consider that his agnosticism may be at risk of the godlings take over the government.

The level of self-denial and delusion is so strong amongst so many of these people as to be scary.

It seems to me, that to reach them we need something other than logic or facts. First this seems like a wrong approach - its manipulation and that should not be what democracy is about - its what the other guys do. But, how can we get them with the facts if they continually reject them? Somehow, we have to make (for want of a better term) the "liberal agenda" attractive to them. Part of that has to come from making liberals likeable. I'm not sure what that looks like. I'm not sure how we do this with creating in them another, different fear. So, perhaps we need to be patient and be available to tend to their wounds when the reality of their leadership comes crashing through their brains.

Any ideas?