The Republican Side …
Because I support The Other Side in its rantings and ravings just as I support my own side, I thoroughly enjoy scoffing/snorting/choking/etc. in derision at their assertions after which I eagerly and in a highly out-raged tone ask incredulous and at times sarcastic questions that, in my mind at least, trivialize and infantilize their whining.
Yep, surprise surprise – Republicans can whine, too! It’s not a Democrat monopoly!
But I must admit, I really do hate reading The Other Side’s writings. Though many are smart (and some are incredibly crafty and gleefully evil [cough] DickCheneyCarlRoveEtc. [cough]), I personally find them lacking in, well, common sense.
The Other Side looks at the numbers and draws conclusions – fine by me. They then vigorously wave them over their heads and squeal that numbers don’t lie we need to reduce government trust in the trickle-down gird our loins and go to war because that will stimulate the economy all weaponry is the answer!
Too bad they forgot that humans, culture, history, communities, and societies are attached to those numbers. Those are not isolated numbers – they are numbers of individuals, families, and communities. These numbers reflect racism, struggle, poverty, economic and financial devastation, distress, and true fear and desperation.
I took a chance and read this opinion article. I dove in, and while I enjoyed some chuckles, I was mostly puzzled.
The author, Mr. Alex Castellanos, accuses specifically Ms. Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, and more broadly all liberal media, of wallowing in moral superiority, making wild accusations and shrinking from any and all evidence to the contrary that Republicans are simply doing what is right for people other than themselves.
I must admit, I agree.
And I love it.
We wallow in moral superiority because, well, we are morally superior. We make accusations that look, sound, smell, and feel wild – because they are – that’s the terrible truth – they are wild accusations that are true. And though it may appear that we are shrinking from any and all evidence that contradicts our images of rabid militant money-squandering Republicans, the truth is more akin to the Republicans clutching their skirts and running away, glancing over their shoulders with entreaties to “leave us alone you mean bullies oh look over there a poor person in need” as they run and dodge, setting fire to the middle class and piles of cash as diversions. So it’s not so much us shrinking away, as The Other Side running away and catching disturbing glimpses of us in their peripheral vision as they skirt yet another issue, dodge yet another self-made chasm, and disavow all responsibility.
(Said in the most condescending tone that I can muster while laughing at him.) I adore Mr. Castellanos’s efforts to compare Republicans’ treatment of the economically disadvantaged and the middle class to parenting. I’ve included the excerpt below:
Parents, of course, in our long journey to bring children from infancy to adulthood, cultivate a more developed morality. Though it may surprise vanden Heuvel, even Republicans find we have a moral obligation to provide for and protect our children. Some of us even learn a few things along the path.
When children are young and unable to care for themselves, we believe it is our responsibility to do everything for them. But enabling endless dependence is not a parent's purpose. Moral parenting requires more than open-handedness. If we really care for our children, our most sacred mission is to raise them to grow strong and independent, so they can stand on their own when we are gone.
At some point, genuinely compassionate and protective parents learn we must take a step back so our children can take a step forward. We let go of their hands and watch them cross the street alone. It is the most frightening day of our lives.
Real love is not perpetuating another's dependence. It is freeing them from it. Genuine moral compassion eventually risks detachment. Every parent knows how easy and indulgent it is to say, "yes". Our toughest but most worthy calls are when we are required to say otherwise. Our country's experiment with welfare brought these principles to national life.
In the '90's, welfare reform elevated recipients, treating them as adults, instead of hopelessly dependent children. At the time, vanden Heuvel's fellow liberals ripped the reform's "immorality" and luxuriated in their ethical superiority. Now, the argument is settled: Our tough national parenting ended the perpetual entitlement, required recipients to find work, and reduced poverty and hunger. The left's moral posturing would have produced more, not less, dependence. As Bill Clinton wrote in 2006, "The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans." Clinton concluded, "Welfare reform has proved a great success."
Morality, we learn through life, requires more than giving. At times, it requires not giving. This too, is a test of our virtue: At what point do we care enough to say, "No"?
As Charles Murray notes in Coming Apart, his unblinking study of the erosion of family and community life in America, "People need self-respect, but self-respect must be earned -- it cannot be self-respect if it's not earned -- and the only way to earn anything is to achieve it in the face of the possibility of failing."
First of all, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Castellanos told/tells his own children/grandchildren, “Hey get away from me. Just get out there and figure it out on your own. I am not going to help you when you ask or need it because that would be teaching you to be a sniveling dependant who will take advantage of me and who will never earn self-respect, self-worth, or independence.”
I find it even more difficult to believe that any wealthy individuals (especially the entitled Republicans themselves) would say the same to their progeny. Yes, I’ve worked hard in my life. And so should you. You do not get to enjoy the fruits of my hard labor. You do not get to live in my house, receive gifts, attend soirees/galas/fundraisers/etc., wear designer clothing, sit on the board of my company, go to college, or go on vacation with me. You must earn self-respect, self-worth, and independence.
Secondly, I find it amusing (and incredibly disturbing) that he wants the socioeconomically disadvantaged, the middle class, and all others who are unable to live comfortably with their three jobs, etc. to fail. Apparently the only way to earn is to fail. The only way to get back on your feet and care for yourself is to hit bottom, and hit bottom hard.
Mr. Castellanos, you’ve been watching too much of A&E’s Intervention show. Tsk tsk.
What a shame that Mr. Castellanos doesn’t believe in adding an L to the beginning of earn to make it LEARN. I personally find learning to be just as rewarding as earning, with the added benefit of knowledge thrown in to all the threesome of money, assets, and power. Learning, as opposed to earning, provides some wiggle room of learning from history, learning from the successes and mistakes of others, learning the roles that assistance and teaching play in learning self-respect, self-worth, and what it means to be independent.
Middle class and low-income Americans work longer hours, more jobs, more physically and mentally straining jobs, come home to more struggle and worries, and feel less valued than the majority of the upper class. And yet they are vilified as dependents, needy children who need to be taught a lesson, and addicts who need to fail in order to truly appreciate their own self-worth.
Thank you, Mr. Castellanos, for helping me solidify why I distrust and fear your ilk.
No comments:
Post a Comment