The Red And The Blue

I don't know if I've written this before but I found it among my notes and it resonates. If it sounds familiar, ignore it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I come from a "blue state." Not surprisingly, virtually all the opinions I hear disparage conservative views and display liberal and intellectual thought. They're all in favor of "entitlements" and are quick to fault all efforts to modify or reevaluate them. They're ideological purists who wouldn't waste time looking at the issues. They've made up their minds and no further thought is necessary. Just some condemning remark – usually expressed as self evident and implying that anyone with a contrary view is evil.

I suspect that in "red states," though the views themselves are the polar opposites of the ones I hear, the approach and the dismissive nature of contrary opinions are the same.

So much for ideological purity and righteous indignation. Neither side will compromise with "wrong-headedness," which is their evaluation of any opinion other than theirs – though there is no need to compromise with those who agree with you. It is more satisfying, and better, to tear down rather than to build up. And if they build me up it is only to let me down.

The majority of the population, however, those whose fate is being judged, are not as single-mined and unyielding. "Half a loaf" is better than nothing at all. And they know that not all the "benefits" awarded them by those who speak in their behalf are as free of problems as claimed. They're more willing to compromise and to reevaluate the existing situation. They are often less focused on entitlements than those who choose to speak, and yell, for them.

But we all feel entitled to something: the rich to a "good life;" the poor to support for their needs (though sometimes the demands made on their behalf are excessive) for food, money, clothing, health care, among other things; non-citizens (legal and illegal) to the rights and benefits of citizens; minorities to recognition; parents to child care and paid work time off; the gender dysphoric to use whatever bathrooms they choose; the incarcerated to better conditions; environmentalists to better conditions for animals and habitats; and everyone to equality.

We all have needs, but who judges them? Who decides what is valid and what wasteful? Who determines whe others are playing the system? In short, who judges right and wrong?

And even when the needs are real and just, who sets priorities, for we may not be able to pay for them all? Everyone will tell you why his needs are more urgent than those of others. It has become common practice for protesters to insist that the demands of whatever group they support be met. So where do we draw the line? We have ethicists who tell us what is right and what is wrong – however they're not always in agreement. But there's another problem as well.

Who pays for the entitlements?

All of what the government does – and in this case I'm discussing entitlements – is paid for by us, the taxpayers. As we raise the cost of entitlements we either raise our own outlay, or the government has to cut back on other services. It's not very complicated. But it never seems to be discussed when someone or some group is making demands. If there is any mention of a source of funding for the program it is that we should tax the one percent, or tax the rich – though it is never quite clear who they are. Many are the entertainment and sports stars we revere but, depending on the definition of "rich," it might include many of what we consider "middle class." And the poor individual who wins the lottery, after years of losing money in it, can be considered rich, which would make his first obligation to support others.

Is that red, blue, purple, or some other color? How would the American color scheme change if we all understood the workings of the system? Our first impulse is to blame those with other points of view than ours. If they're in power it's obviously their fault. If they're out of power the problems stem from what they did in the past and their obstructionism now. We specialize in casting blame, and in negative advertising – rather than in solving problems. Indeed, we're usually not in agreement about what the problems are.

In the past I've frequently ranted about the evil of people, but my concern right now is that people of all colors – black and white, blue and red, rainbow) either have no opinion or one that is fixed. Getting agreement when the disagreements are ideological is all but impossible. Blue and red will remain thoughtless. And irrespective of who wins, the purple will lose.

August 11, 2017

The Loyal Opposition

I know I sound like a broken record (actually the record is fine but the changer doesn't work) however I don't see any improvement in the situation so I'll try again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

February (2017) is fast coming to a close. The presidential election occurred in early November, 2016. It's over. It's time to step back and take a deep breath.

Unfortunately there seem to be many – probably more than during the campaign itself – who won't “give up the ship.” Protest marches are rampant. The media continue to publish “revelations” about the new administration and its members. People in the public eye use their own “bully pulpits” to denigrate those responsible for leading the government – those elected according to the tenets of the Constitution.

The same Constitution guarantees all of these people the right to speak their minds as long as they choose, but common sense suggests that the efforts are counterproductive. Actually, that characterization is based on the assumption that the prime loyalty of those protesting is to the United States, and that may not be the case. The “Loyal Opposition” cannot always be assumed to have its country as the prime concern.

The term itself apparently arose in England during the eighteenth century, the same century in which we declared our independence from our mother country. Perhaps this was one of the British precepts that we rejected. Our own history often raises the question and that is certainly the case now. Protesters cannot be faulted for their passion. They have learned from the media, by osmosis if not a stated teaching, that criticism and bad news rule the day and should be encouraged.

What has resulted is a “devoted (or, if you prefer, “dedicated”) opposition,” one devoted and dedicated, however, to opposition itself, rather than to the country in which they live. The group is primarily private citizens, But the media and our politicians play a major role in its development: the media with their quest for Pulitzer Prizes and sales, and our “representatives” in search of party advantage and the defeat of any administration appointments irrespective of qualifications. With those as their primary motives, it is not surprising that private citizens follow suit, decrying all that they perceive as injustices, and marching in order to … I'm not sure what. If their views and voices haven't been heard yet it is likely they never will be. All they're likely to do is increase the determination of those in charge to carry out the plans they've developed. It's a challenge to administration leaders not to change, but to “double down.”

An example of this is immigration policy. The loyal opposition tells us that we are all immigrants and we shouldn't restrict immigration (though we have done so many times in the past) because “that's not who we are;” it's contrary to “American values.” At the same time, those who support proposed changes point out that we are “a nation of laws” and that those laws should be enforced. Those who are following the rules should be given preference over those who bypass them.

And those who favor free immigration believe that the “multiculturalism” associated with immigration will strengthen our country. Not E Pluribus Unum but E Pluribus Plus. Without a common culture though, we're likely to be Balkanized and divided rather than unified. A common culture and a common language are more likely to bring us together. People want to come to America for many reasons – economic and political are the most common – and they'll form the backbone of our future. But those who come from Mexico aren't doing so in the expectation of a “Mexico North,” and those from the Middle East aren't looking for a western version of the society they're fleeing.

Sadly, much of American protests reflect ideology rather than an attempt by the protesters to accomplish their stated goals. The primary aim seems to be the establishment of a record of fighting for “right” and not compromising with “the devil.” They want to divert the administration's attention and resources and be able to say “I told you so” during the next campaign. They want to provide material for negative ads then.

But the reality is that right now they'll lose (although that actually may be their hope) and they'll forfeit the opportunity to tone down what they consider ill-considered legislation. All they can do with an obstructionist outlook is slow the process and, if they succeed in doing so, they'll show, as we've already seen, that the government they tried to obstruct goes on, and does well in the face of legislative gridlock: that less government works well.

As I have said many times before, I did not vote for our current president but he won, and we owe him the chance to implement his policies. In 2020 we'll have the opportunity to indicate the degree to which we think they have been effective – with 20/20 hindsight.