Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hold on one goddamned minute here....

So I have been of course following the news in the aftermath of Katrina, and the explosion of commentary on the government's handling (or lack thereof) of it all.

I will freely admit I've been strongly on the left side of the debate up till now. FEMA has screwed up, and badly. As far as I've been able to tell, state and local (Democratic) officials have been doing everything they can, but have been hamstrung at every turn by the federal level.

But in the last day I've seen some extremely chilling commentary coming from the left, at least as horrifying as the sheer callousness shown by the right.

"Greyhound's nearly 2,000 buses could have gotten them all out--but commandeering private property is the act of a civilized nation, not the leaner, meaner, tough-break United States." (emphasis mine)

Commandeering private property is the act of a civilized nation? WHAT. THE. FUCK?! Does anyone, *anyone* else see the sheer ironic horror in this statement?

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing with his point, that Greyhound buses should have been used to assist the evacuation. But to use this statement as a basis for it, to equate being civilized with the abrogation of private property rights, just boggles my mind. This country was founded on the right to own property, the right to control it without the government coming in and siezing it whenever they felt like it. The entire progress of western civilization from the Magna Carta onward has been away from rule-by-force, and towards the power of the individual to do with his property as he sees fit. And now this person says that's not civilized? EXCUSE ME?!

Yeah, I'm a little incensed here.

The next snippet:

"The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.

The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods."

This one's a little harder to dissect, but it still made my skin prickle when I read it. Let's look at the comparisons one by one:

Liberal principle #1: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives.
Conservative principle #1: Rely on individual discipline and initiative.

I'm sorry, but if I have to pick one (and I don't think these are mutually exclusive!) I'm going to have to come down on the conservative side.

Liberal principle #2: Promoting the common good is the central role of government.
Conservative principle #2: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.

Not necessarily going to disagree with L#2, though defining "common good" is a tricky one. I'd prefer to define the role of government as to protect the rights of individuals. But C#2? How on earth does that follow from C#1? And how on earth does it bear any relationship to the way our goverment is acting? I daresay Bush&co would say the government has a very useful role, namely to take over, er, "spread democracy" in other countries, and to, er, protect the interests of corporations. (No, I don't like Bush, can you tell?)

There have been many criticisms of the left that all they do lately is point fingers at the right, without coming up with a plan of their own. It may be the above statements are an effort to change that, but by gods, if that's it? I wash my hands of them. They seem to be saying that government has every right, even the responsibility, to sweep away individual rights in favor of whatever it views to be the common good.

Funny, what with the detainment camps, and preventing private enterprise and charity from coming in to help, and treating all of the refugees like criminals lest they run riot, I'd say that "liberal" principle is what's at work right now down there.

Here, in my mind, is the central issue. The government promised one thing, and delivered another. They said they'd take care of things, but turned away assistance even as people were dying en masse for lack of support. The social contract has been breached, and *that* is the problem.



Sep. 9th, 2005 07:56 pm (UTC)
What you didn't quote was one of the following lines:

It’s the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You’re only entitled to what you can afford.

I think that's the key to how what's going on down there follows conservative and not liberal principles - those who could afford to have already gotten out.

Beyond that I can't quite bring myself to reply to everything here. I'll just say that reading it gives me a sinking feeling in my gut. I feel like someone I respected and thought was cool has been corrupted by Rush Limbaugh.
Sep. 10th, 2005 09:17 am (UTC)
Part of my point was that I agreed very much with part of the articles, including the part you quoted, but was horrified by others.

I"m sorry you feel I've "been corrupted by Rush LImbaugh" - I can only say that I hope you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and that I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.


firesea: self-portrait
Heather Keith Freeman
Fire Sea Studios

Latest Month

October 2012


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi