Time for a national divorce?
I think it would be interesting to split this country in two. Perhaps that should have happened ages ago during the Civil War. Perhaps we should have broken up at the Mason Dixon line and parted ways as two incompatible friends with fond memories. But since we didn't, and since Abraham Lincoln's "united we stand; divided we fall" speech is turning into an eerily accurate prophecy, I think it's time for just such an experiment in ideology.…
Article comments
26 - handyguy
No problem: Obama's political identity is fluid, too. But the current theatrical role he is choosing is Reasonable Grownup in a room full of extremist crybabies, left and right. It is serving him well, and whether he is sincere is secondary.
27 - roger nowosielski
There's something to be said, though, for adopting political positions which appear to be rooted in empathy rather than in appeals to narrowly-conceived self-interests, especially when these roles are well-enacted and ring true with conviction and passion, At bottom, those positions tend to convey greater understanding of the nature of human societies/communities, are more comprehensive for the fact, and command a wider appeal. So apart from mere role enactment, there may well be substantive differences.
28 - handyguy
Playing the empathy card is made a lot easier when you have an opponent [Ryan] who appears to have more empathy for multimillionaires than for elderly and poor people.
I'm sure Paul Ryan as an individual [and a good Catholic] holds somewhere within him a reasonable amount of empathy; but he allows himself to be completely constrained by robotically rigid ideology:
Never. Raise. Taxes. Always. Lower. Taxes.
and
Must. Keep. Chopping. At. Welfare. State.
The political tone-deafness is breathtaking.
29 - John Lake
Hadn't been for Nalle, I wouldn't a-known it was a socialist thing. Thought it might be a birther thing.
"On the liberal side, we could socialize to our bleeding hearts' content because people who would choose to live here would know that we are stronger acting collectively than as individuals..."
Talk about your Utopian paragraph. We should try that.
But if we were a little noveo-socialist, we could assure that politicians would not benefit from taking the corporate stand. That corporate stand will soon take this once-great nation straight to hell.
When the "interest groups" spread their talons to include Democrats, independents, and the throng, there won't be much left. We can thank the Noble Supreme Court for their clear thinking on that one.
If I have to sit through one more attempt to examine the McCarthy hearings, I may vomit.
30 - Is It Easter Yet?
@Meggan's Moustache (and @Meggan, in general) and to Comments Editor:
My earlier comment about latte vs. "Americanos with room" became a non-sequitur after Arch Conservative's all-in-the-spirit-of-fun literary abusive of M&M and her liberal latte-sipping ways was deleted. The comment editors USED to delete any [innocuous] comments that were replies to the offending deleted comment, to preserve the continuity of the thread. It may be that the rule did not apply to my comment, which was more of a spin-off of Arch's comment than an actual reply to it.
But you know, the cafe Americano thing kind of WORKED better with Arch's literary abuse in the comment preceding, at least the latte-sipping part of it, and perhaps, the comment editors might also, upon a second reading, perceive the stylistic deficiencies of the comment thread with Arch's comment GONE and my comment REMAINING, and could delete my comment as well. Your call, comments editor. Of course, I suppose if you don't delete my comment, THIS comment (the one you are reading now) would serve as a sort of footnote.)
Now back to Meggan's Moustache.
Speaking of Arch Conservative's (perhaps) all-in-the-spirit-of-fun literary abuse of you. It could be that this article WAS satirical, too, but fact is, my feelings were hurt too much for the signals coming from the satire-recognition center of my brain to gain the upper hand.
Well here it is: It must be annoying for people who write satire when people don't "get" that their articles are satire. So, I want to apologize that I didn't appreciate the piece's fine satirical qualities before commenting and acting all "why can't we just get along" etc. But I DO get it now...unless...
...it really WASN'T satire, and you really DO want me in a country remote from yours, in which case you probably also want me not to ever ever comment on any more articles of yours ever again. In which case I won't because if there's one thing I don't want to be in Blog Critics, it's a tiresome nuisance in the comment section.
But back to the other hand, if it WAS satire, then if I don't ever ever comment on any of your articles ever again, then might I not be projecting precisely the image that I am hoping to avoid, that of the satire-un-recognizing sulking humorless conservative who can't take a joke?
I am in an infinite loop now.
31 - Cindy
Socialism has become the default in our society. Reversing that trend is going to be a big job.
But Dave, maybe 'socialism' is more in line with human nature than individualism. Perhaps everyone is a 'socialist' because their nature cannot be denied. How can people all be 'socialists' if their very nature is to compete? Are people going against their own genetic make up?
32 - troll
Dave re #10 - what are these 'natural forces' in the labor market that you claim exist...pricing labor is (and has been from the jump) a political playground
33 - Boeke
31-Cindy is right: the human animal IS a social animal which is ENTIRELY dependent on it's fellows. Not a ONE of us would have survived the first week of life without the cooperation of human social beings. Indeed, most of us require many many years of support and protection.
It is the way that we are. The human is a gregarious animal.
Cooperation is as important as competition. In fact, it may be much more important. Competition simply isn't strong enough to power a society, and at the same time it has terrific destructive power.
Most of the great achievements in human society proceed from the cooperative impulse. Competition is a sort of fine tuning step to allow strong competitors to express themselves, and maybe do some good for society. But over-dependence on competition leads to mutual destruction. The ultimate end-game is a winner-take-all in which one person prospers and ALL others are destitute.
34 - Cindy
Since Dave, as a Libertarian, would say that people are naturally competitive and selfish, I am wondering how he can explain all these socialists everywhere. Are people going against their naturally selfish nature? How can it be their nature in that case?
Dave? What do you think?
35 - Cannonshop
#34 When you can use the collective to advance yourself over others? it's easy to see how. Socialism requires centralized control of resources, and relies on creating addiction to the System as the means to address all problems, therefore, you have people who've bought into an offer of largesse (consider the Nigerian Internet banking scam as your example, and how easily people fall for THAT.)
Socialism offers something-for-nothing or something-for-very-little, human beings tend, like water, to find the easiest route, offer them an easy route (Uncle Sam will pay for it!) and you've got a guaranteed voter base.
36 - Boeke
#35 is utterly mystifying. How does one "use the collective to advance yourself over others?" Is that somehow different from struggling for a promotion?
37 - Cannonshop
#36 It hinges a lot on whether your struggle for promotion is based on merit, or on connections. In a non-socialist system, connections don't get you squat most of the time-too much competition, organizations can't afford cronies or nepotism. In a highly-centralized situation (Such as socialism) Merit doesn't get you squat-it really does not matter how hard, or well, you work, only that you know how to grease your way into the good offices of those with political power-because in a socialist system, political power IS economic power-the two are never at odds, having the same power structure.
Producers and Regulators should NEVER be in bed together, much less in bed, and related.
38 - Cannonshop
Let me try to clarify, Boeke: it's the same problem you have with managers belonging to/holding offices in the union. The only healthy relationship between regulators and business, is essentially an adversarial one, predicated on service to the customer base/taxpayers, when they collude, it only ever harms taxpayers and customers-and don't make a mistake about it, Big Business interests and Big Government interests are mutually INclusive-that is, they're the same interests, "Public/Private Partnership" is a nice way of saying "Corporate Welfare at the expense of the common citizen."
Entitlements are the snake-oil used to grease this machine- by telling the taxpayer/citizens that they will recieve benefits if they just sacrifice more and more of their autonomy, it creates a situation where the rational choice at the individual level, is potentially catastrophic at the societal level when the bills come due. Extension of unending credit and addiction to debt is the fuel that keeps this burning, and straw-man make-believe issues like Abortion or where the President was born provide a smoke-screen and distraction to hide the real damage being done in the people's name.
Socialism is the control, by a central authority, of the means of economic production. This, by definition, means your producing sector is controlled by your regulators DIRECTLY, and those regulators in turn are controlled by the rhetoric of the ruling party-directly. Effectively it's bribe-culture and influence-peddling writ large and legitimized as policy.
39 - Cannonshop
Oh, and clarifying the original question a bit...
Getting people to do things against their own self-interest is at the heart of an entire industry-it's called 'Advertising' and it's a refined process of getting people to buy shit that they don't need, and often shit that isn't good for them...
i.e. to act against their own self-interest. If people acted in their own self-interest, tobacco companies would have to rely on religious sales to Native Tribes (representing, at most, one to two uses per year, not sufficient to support a multibillion dollar industry), Alcohol companies would have to rely on industrial solvent sales, drug-dealers wouldn't be making millions with imported organic poisons, and the crime rate would be a lot lower than it is-the amount of work it takes to run a crack-house could run a corner store at a large profit without the legal hassles or violence.
40 - Cindy
Cannonshop,
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance, the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association."
Why do you imagine that CENTRAL control of anything is required under socialism?
(Consider your claims about the state and corporate welfare, couldn't a state also similarly distort socialism?)
41 - Cindy
You may wish to find out what libertarian socialism is. (Hint: it is a form of stateless socialism.)
42 - Cindy
37 - ...connections don't get you squat most of the time-too much competition...
That is the exact opposite of the bulk of my direct personal experience with regard to privately held businesses.
(Which just made me realize that sexism is rampant in the 'actual' free market!)
43 - troll
(...'adhocracy'...I shoulda thought of that)
44 - zingzing
cannonshop: "In a non-socialist system, connections don't get you squat most of the time-too much competition, organizations can't afford cronies or nepotism."
holy shit. that's the biggest load of fantasy i've ever read. it's a "who you know" world out there, and that's just a fact. it's like you've never heard of networking. what the hell is this, the 50s? did the 50s even exist?
cannonshop, you're only fooling yourself.
45 - handyguy
All modern democracies are a hybrid of free markets and socialism, but the US is by far the least socialistic. [If I'm wrong on that, please tell me what the other countries are.]
Yet Cannon and others here continue to make jaw-dropping claims about how dependent people are on the government. It's Fantasyland.
46 - Boeke
I can't follow cannonshops argument at all.
47 - zingzing
"I can't follow cannonshops argument at all."
read it as what it is... fiction.
48 - Dave Nalle
I never said that people are necessarily selfish, but certainly most are. And I never said that selfishness was a good thing on which to base society, though it certainly has to be accounted for.
Many here seem to be confusing society or the social contract with socialism. Having a functioning society does not require socialism, and caring for others and wanting to have them lead better lives cannot only be addressed with socialism.
Socialism as it functions today is the forced equalization of the members of society against the interests of some and to the benefit of others. It is the use of mob rule and democratic institutions to improve the conditions of the unproductive at the expense of the productive members of society.
This is particularly bad today as we now have an unproductive majority and our productive minority is shrinking and less and less able to support this growing burden.
You can praise this as more human or more equal, but even if that is true, the fact remains that it is not a functional way to run a prosperous society. It discourages success and accomplishment and ambition and encourages dependence and corruption.
Taking the entire country down to financial ruin in the name of doing good for the needy still plunges us all into disaster despite the good intentions.
Dave
49 - Cannonshop
#48 might also add that, in the long run, it not only doesn't help the needy, but it creates MORE needy that won't be helped. "Equalizing" everyone into a mud hut isn't a good idea.
50 - Dr Dreadful
Many here seem to be confusing society or the social contract with socialism.
Including yourself, Dave.
51 - handyguy
Neither 48 nor 49 is an accurate depiction of the United States. They present an ideological fantasy.
Since the last 30 years [at least] have seen a great increase in income inequality, a financial stagnation or regression for the middle class and the poor, how can anyone claim with a straight face that we are 'equalizing everyone into a mud hut'?
Dave talks about a productive minority and an unproductive majority. These sound convenient, and fictional, to me. Any stats [and for that matter definitions] to back them up?
52 - troll
too bad the word 'socialism' is dug into the language and the debate like a tick - it sure doesn't facilitate communication
Dave and Cannonshop abhor the free rider and the elements in our distribution system that encourage him - and mistakenly lay the blame on 'socialism'
but the modern US free rider is the political child of capitalist production with its required 'army of unemployed' and its captured and corrupted government - there is no good reason to assume that the problem would persist among workers at least in any big way if folks weren't forced into idleness in order to control labor's price
...cutting owners off from subsidies advantages and protections might prove more difficult than simply pointing board members and shareholders towards productive jobs though
53 - troll
too bad the word 'socialism' is dug into the language and the debate like a tick - it sure doesn't facilitate communication
Dave and Cannonshop abhor the free rider and the elements in our distribution system that encourage him - and mistakenly lay the blame on 'socialism'
but the modern US free rider is the political child of capitalist production with its required 'army of unemployed' and its captured and corrupted government - there is no good reason to assume that the problem would persist among workers at least in any big way if folks weren't forced into idleness in order to control labor's price
...cutting owners off from subsidies advantages and protections might prove more difficult than simply pointing board members and shareholders towards productive jobs though
54 - Dave Nalle
Troll, the negatives you describe are not characteristic of capitalism, they are characteristic of state corporatism, which is certainly a problem. But it is iteself a sort of outgrowth of socialism, where the risk of business is socialized by the government - shared among the people instead of shouldered by the corporations themselves. It's one of the worst kinds of socialism.
Dave
55 - Boeke
State corporatism IS American capitalism!
And that, incidentally, is Facsism.
u
56 - Dan
No one seems to notice that Megan M. and like minded progressives here are embracing a conservative traditional value.
Federalism provides for the kind of social laboratories where people could be free to associate with others who shared their vision.
fifty states could become fifty laboratories. We could learn a lot about ourselves from a national experiment like that. That's not something everyone would want known.
Progressives forget their reliance on authoritarianism some times. But they're the ones who killed freedom of association.
57 - Dr Dreadful
Dan, you seem to me to have unwarranted confidence in a particular outcome of the experiment.
58 - Dan
Not me Dr. D., but some here have expressed confidence in "particular" outcomes of such experiments.
I was mainly clarifying for them the conservative roots of their social fantasies, and reminding them how their totalitarian ideology forbids societal experimentation.
I like the idea of states rights. I would guess that to some extent any type of government would run smoother with ideological homogenity of it's population.
59 - handyguy
Speaking of states serving as incubators for social "innovations," Rachel Maddow has been spotlighting the authoritarian side of several newly Republican state governments:
Michigan can now forcibly take over local governments and appoint a czar [emergency financial manager] with unlimited power to fire elected officials. [Investment banks and other firms are lining up to take on this new set of jobs; 200 are currently being trained.]
Doctors in Indiana will be required to read a state-mandated script to any woman requesting abortion -- a medically inaccurate script at that.
In Florida, anyone wanting to work for state government will face mandatory urine screening for drugs. So will everyone receiving unemployment benefits. [The governor's wife just happens to run a company that provides the testing, how convenient.]
She has several other examples, just visit her video site and blog.
Viva la small, unintrusive government!
60 - Dr Dreadful
Dan (#58), you're probably right, although no state is an island (at least not geopolitically). I suspect that the particular constitutional makeup of some of these politically homogeneous states would make outsiders uninclined to (a) do business with them (b) not make war on them.
61 - Dan
Dr. Dreadful, I guess everyone should have the right to boycott any state they don't like, but since a shared obligation for maintenance of a scaled back Federal government is the only actual dealing with the disfavored state you need to engage in, war wouldn't seem logical. Live and let live.
handyguy demonstrates in #59 how unhappy he is with other states political decisions. That's the problem. It is an unwillingness to allow others to structure their society contrary to his liking. He prefers constant political tension.
Maybe there could be one state that featured constant political tension for people who like that.
62 - Dr Dreadful
since a shared obligation for maintenance of a scaled back Federal government is the only actual dealing with the disfavored state you need to engage in, war wouldn't seem logical. Live and let live.
Such a system would be fine as long as everyone agreed to abide by it. However, I would remind you that a similar arrangement stopped working for about four years in 1861, resulting in the most catastrophic loss of life in American history.
63 - handyguy
And the concept of states as separately governed countries is a fantasy that was decisively rejected in 1865.
I would think examples of [as opposed to fictional claims of] anti-democratic, intrusive government might bother anyone, not just me.
64 - Dan
"And the concept of states as separately governed countries is a fantasy that was decisively rejected in 1865."
Yes, rejected by violence.
"I would think examples of [as opposed to fictional claims of] anti-democratic, intrusive government might bother anyone, not just me."
I'm not bothered by people living the way they choose. All the examples you mention, despite your Orwellian perceptions, were the result of democratically elected officials acting in accordance with the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
Handyguy reveals the regressive nature of "progressive" ideology. It's the same primitive totalitarianism favored by Islamic jihadists.
This was my original point, any sort of enlightened societal experimentation would never originate with "progressives".