(Part I dealt with my #1 concern, climate change.)
(And this post is a quick one partly because I want to move on, & partly because my background in political science, policy wonkery, economics and history are minimal; so for the most part I'm just doing stenography.)
Here are J's views, in brief (which is not how they were delivered :-); my Qs are in parentheses. And she's just one TPP; others' views may differ.
National government has no ability to define or to solve problems; government can't know best what *you* want, you do.
"There's a paradigm shift going on; realizing that governments aren't the answer"
Those in government are self-serving first, then serve giant corporations second.(?)
If we strip the government of power, it can no longer give power to these giant corporations, so the people will have the power.
"If they didn't have favors to sell, senators wouldn't be for sale".
"Power is a zero sum game".
The more government does for us, the less empowered we citizens are; government takes away risk, consequences, and choice.
"Name one country where government's powers were unleashed, and it stayed good."
Government has an urge to control everything, with nasty consequences.
We've never seen such corruption as now.
"Every genocidal thing came out of a powerful government."
(The Rwandan massacre?) "that was about getting political power."
We support states' rights; the states are 50 fabulous experiments.
We need a grassroots government; the people need to take back the government.
(Do those "people" include corporations?) Yes, we must not silence debate.
(How do you keep the (corporation-funded) PR industry from hoodwinking the people?) You need an educated population; people need to pay attention. If you smoke cigarettes, it's your own fault for having let yourself get fooled.
(What about children, and big tobacco's attempt to seduce kids into seeing smoking as cool?) It's our responsibility as parents to turn off the TV.
(Is that fair to the kids whose parents aren't turning off the TV?) Beware of "fairness" arguments, them's fightin' words - it always translates to more government power, which is an evil.
A democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.
(Military?) Yes, we need a strong one; "the only function a government has, is to protect a nation"
The free market - with us, voting as consumers with our wallets - is how to solve problems. Stopping acid rain didn't require UN involvement, the answer was the free market.
In summary, what I observed was a very genuine concern for our country; enormous mistrust in government; a corresponding excessive faith in the wisdom of the public; a blind spot, on the dynamics of power and the methods by which moneyed interests will seek to accumulate it. And a fundamental unshakable belief that the market should be our master, not our servant.
I also heard echoes of New Age thinking, where inspirational stories trump an unwelcome reality - where our "consumer" power, wielded as shoppers voting with our wallets, can realistically be relied upon to correct market failures.
(And I realized *I* need to read more about the drafting of the Constitution; while I assume that in saying "...to promote the general welfare..." the framers didn't mean "don't regulate or provide a safety net", it's certainly not something I can discuss knowledgeably.)
Morals of the story?
It's always worth talking to people from a new movement, to get a feeling for where they're coming from and what related beliefs they hold; and to have it brought home to you, just where you need to brush up on your own learning.
And - again - schools need to build citizens, not just train workers. People need to grasp - and grasp the concepts underlying - arguments, counterarguments, counter-counter-arguments.
And, of course,
Democracy won't work if the people don't know what is going on.
4 comments:
This has been certainly one of the most interesting experiences of my life in seeing how what we say is "heard" and then translated through another's viewpoint.
But I must point out, that while virtually everything you reported was "close" to what I said, your interpretations were sometimes not. I understand that you were trying to take in my running stream of commentary and thoughts, and I applaud you on the attempt to recreate what was a very free-wheeling conversation!! :) But I am stunned by the way we see things so differently that we can both be participants in a conversation and think so differently about it.
>>National government has no ability to define or to solve problems; government can't know best what *you* want, you do.<<
I did not say that national government has NO ability to define or solve problems, just that they are not the BEST vehicle to address problems. They are far far far too removed from the people their decisions affect. A free market has no bias or self-interest in any particular answer...only what works, because if something doesn't work, the market will kill it. Only in government can something that is blatantly ill-conceived, poorly run, and disastrous in operation live on and on. Companies go out of business if they act like the government. Unless, of course, they are protected from market forces by, you guessed it, government. That is why big business loves big government. Only government has the power in any society to distort and manipulate the market so that companies can essentially escape the free market. There is an old saying, "Nobody hates capitalism like a capitalist." This humorously illustrated the idea that few want to live in a world of uncertainty and challenge (eg competition), so they seek to exert power to control the uncertainties of competition as soon as they have the power to do so. It's the "I'm on board, pull up the ladder" mentality. And the BEST way to exert power in society is through government. Certainly, it is not the ONLY way...just the very best.
Part II to follow!
Part II
>>Those in government are self-serving first, then serve giant corporations second.(?)<<
Everyone is self-serving first. Who and what they serve second is anybody's guess. YOU are self-serving first. How can you be otherwise? Why would you? Even if I donate time and money to Hospitality House to feed the homeless, which I do, it is self-serving in that I believe it is in my own interest to help others, I feel better about my community, my actions, etc. There is no such thing as purely selfless action. The problem is when you take this human tendency and provide power, privilege, protection. Toxic. Dangerous. A bad idea.
>>If we strip the government of power, it can no longer give power to these giant corporations, so the people will have the power.
"If they didn't have favors to sell, senators wouldn't be for sale".
"Power is a zero sum game".<<
This is essentially what I said. As P.J.O'Rourke said, "When you give politicians the power to buy and sell, the first thing that will be bought and sold are the politicians." We see that now in crony capitalism which allows for corporations to basically privatize profits and socialize risks. Not a good way to run things. Can only be done with the power of government.
As for power being a zero sum game. Yes. Like I said, wealth is not. It can be created out of the imagination and tenacity of men with vision. But with power, either you have it or the government has it. For every step forward the government takes, you must take a step backward.
The next series of quotes are pretty right on.
>>We need a grassroots government; the people need to take back the government.
(Do those "people" include corporations?) Yes, we must not silence debate.<<
This is slightly disingenuous. This is an issue of free political speech. I firmly believe that when you give the power to the government to determine WHO and can WHAT and WHEN, you're in real trouble. Silencing political speech is always a bad idea. Let the shouting begin!!! The only caveat is that anyone and everyone should be identified so that people can know what, if any agenda, is in play behind what they are saying.
I'll let the rest go to address your interpretation in part II of this comment thread. Thanks for the opportunity to hash things out, as it were!
Your interpretation of what I said really threw the kitchen sink at me! I am surprised to find I'm influenced by New Age thinking and excessive faith, inspirational stories that deny the truth and an "unshakable belief" that the free market should be "our master", to sum it up quickly. Certainly, by your assessment, I don't appear to be influenced by rational or critical thinking, or information, or a basic understanding of the action of government in society, or the responsibilities of the citizen, or the function of a free market.
Your translation to this summary, if I may, dismissed me as ill-informed, easily influenced, naive, a mindless consumer, and often silly. Be very careful, readers! These are the kind of people who might "run things" if we listen to these Tea Partiers.
I don't even write this with wounded sensibilities. It is with more of a kind of bemused fatalism. Honestly, it is not the first time I have discussed things with someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum, only to find that what I said and what they heard were two very different things.
You say my belief in the wisdom of the public is "excessive". I don't remember talking about the public. I talked about the individual. This is an important distinction which is critical in understanding the great difference between your views and my own. The collectivist sees things in groups. The classical liberal sees things as they affect the individual. It was individuals who built this country, NOT the government (which is the power of the collective). The individual invented, created, designed, imagined, inspired, and dreamed this country into existence. My question is why don't YOU have "excessive faith" in your fellow citizens as free individuals? Why do you place your excessive faith, instead, in government (the collective) and its power to control, suppress and subjugate? What can you point to that would reassure me that government, grown bloated with power and money, is the more moral and rational way to order individuals' lives?
At the end of the day I must say I enjoyed meeting you. I would actually really like meeting for coffee some day. Not that I believe for a minute that I would change your mind, as you will not change mine, but because I just like smart people. Thanks for the opportunity to "discuss" things. But we must part in disagreement of what it means to be a citizen, what is government's role, etc. I am for fiscal responsibility. Are you? I am for limited government. I suspect you are not. I am for the free market. I KNOW you are not.
I am for the individual. You are for the collective. Which makes no sense. If individuals are stupid, as you suggest, how could a large group of them be any smarter? Just seems to me that would make them more dangerous.
I am for true hope and change. I place my hope in the ingenuity and tenacity of the American people, not in elected officials who I KNOW lied to me to get elected. I believe in change that is organic, spontaneous and directed not by a faceless government bureaucracy in Washington, but by the actions of free men and women working to address the needs they see around them.
I believe excessively in the American citizen.
Thank you Joy, for your - pardon the pun - rejoinders.
> "But I am stunned by the way we see things so differently that we can both be participants in a conversation and think so differently about it."
Indeed. IMO this is why reflective listening - repeating what you think you heard the other person say - can be so valuable.
> "big business loves big government."
Really? I thought big business loved *small* government (unless it's a govt contractor, of course)
> "few want to live in a world of uncertainty and challenge (eg competition), so they seek to exert power to control the uncertainties of competition as soon as they have the power to do so."
Yes; by price-fixing, collusion, monopolies, employing the mob to lean on folks who're in your way...all of which do fine in the absence of government.
> "Even if I donate time and money to Hospitality House to feed the homeless, which I do, it is self-serving in that..."
But that conflates 2 different kinds of "self-serving", in a way that throws a spanner in the works of an otherwise (potentially) productive discussion.
[obviously, I could go on...]
Yes, coffee sometime is a great idea. And as I suggested in email, IMO the community conversation at Jeff Pelline's blog would benefit by your presence.
Post a Comment